Is DU Ammunition Self Defeating?

[Gremlin29]

Thanks for telling me about the nature of DU rounds Gremlin. Just a question: if it "vapourises on contact", how does it penetrate the armour?? :shudder

I assume you mean that it vaporises after contact .

I can't argue the mechanics, but my understanding is that the pentrator does not enter the tank as a solid object. Let's just agree that it is pulverized in the process resulting in particles released via thermo/mechanical means.

But as I stated earlier and it seems to have been misunderstood, DU does not present a radiological hazard.

Regarding the anti-US comments, get off your high horses. We've shown more compassion and restraint in Iraq and Afghanistan than it's own citizens have towards each other. Isn't it curious there aren't ANY US POW's in either country? The few that have been captured, were tortured and decapitated. If it were up to me (and it obviously isn't), we would give what we get.

 

[Chrom]

Many good points but don't be disingenuous on the fighting on home soil argument. Which country can invade the US or Russia, resulting in the need for these powers to fight/defend at home?

And this is the main question - why USA uses then such barbaric weapon if it dont defend its home?

Are you claiming that US forces are using DU against purely civilian targets by design? Or are the Americans there fighting vicious enemy combatants (who also use suicide bombers against civilians and place tons of unattended IEDs)? Beyond DU ammo, what about ROEs? Especially, since both the former Soviet army and the current US forces are fighting against essentially the same religiously motivated tribes in Afghanistan (in some cases)?

Yes, USA uses DU ammo BY design. Against civilian targets or military - doesnt matter in the slightest, becouse right after direct combat civilians WILL travel/use/evacuate/whatever contaminated ground/vehiceles/etc.

It is like using nuclear weapon. Doesnt matter that much against military or civilian targets - becouse in both cases civilians will suffer almost as much.

And beheading westerners by the religiously motivated combatants and OBL's Sept 11 attack did not give the US cause for a response?

1. Iraq didnt participated in 9/11, contrary Iraq was main enemy of Islamic terrorists.

2. Afganistan had nothing to do with 9/11, at least much less than USA "ally" Saudi Arabia and Arabic Emirates.

3. What have done Serbia to USA so USA feels the rights to pullute its ground by DU?

4. And no, 9/11 dont give USA any rights to pollutte the world with DU.

Keep in mind the strict ROEs of the current forces operating in Afghanistan. What was Soviet ROEs like in their last 'peace keeping' mis-adventure in Afghanistan? Hmm... did the Soviets or the former Soviet-supported government of Ahmadzai Najibullah also use mines in the last outing?

Condemn the Americans all you like but would your country like to send more troops police the neighbourhood? Anyway, I'm going a little off topic... so please forgive the side track.

Do not compare apple with oranges. We are speaking strictly about ecological pollution here.

P.S. This have actually quite little to do if USA rights or wrong in its "war on terror". Nothing to do with any ROE, etc. It have everything to do with DU hazzard and its unneccessary (from military point of view) use. Yes, DU is cheap. Yes, other alternatives much more expencive and slightly worse. But every other country ready to pay more but NOT pollute own and foreign land with DU.

 

[Chrom]

You might want to look into Russian ops this past year, as an example of how wrong you are and how succeptable to progpanda you appear to be.

Please, enlighten us where Russian troops used DU ammo during last year? During last 50 years?

 

[hovercraft]

Ex Prime Minister of Pakistan, Banazir Bhutto was also assassinated by DU bullits. According to intillegence agencies of Pakistan and Russia.
And this is not possible for Taliban and Al-qaida. Then who

 

[Gremlin29]

1. Iraq didnt participated in 9/11, contary Iraq was main enemy of Islamic terrorists.

Iraq would have never been invaded if they had complied with UN sanctions, end of story. They played a dangerous game with the most leathal force on earth, not too smart and as we have seen didn't work out too well for them did it?

2. Afganistan had nothing to do with 9/11, at least much less than USA "ally" Saudi Arabia and Arabic Emirates.

Afganistan is of strategic interest, not tactical. You seem completely wrapped up around the axles with 9/11 and the US.

3. What have done Serbia to USA so USA feels the rights to pullute its ground by DU?

Ummm, genocide maybe? Never mind the fact that the victims of said genocide were muslims, really goes against the whole "US hates muslims" theme doesn't it?

By the way, Iraq did more polluting with the oil wells they destroyed than all the DU's dumped there, and the Afghans are polluting all of mankind with heroin. And Serbia wouldn't have been occupied by the UN if they weren't behaving like the Nazi's of WW2. It's all cause, and effect.

 

[Chrom]

1. Iraq didnt participated in 9/11, contary Iraq was main enemy of Islamic terrorists.

Iraq would have never been invaded if they had complied with UN sanctions, end of story. They played a dangerous game with the most leathal force on earth, not too smart and as we have seen didn't work out too well for them did it?

Ugh, now we will invade every country which dont comply? Common, Israel would be first one, USA second. BTW, USA and its allies is by, (and i mean like BY FAR) posses largerst share of denying UN resolutions.

2. Afganistan had nothing to do with 9/11, at least much less than USA "ally" Saudi Arabia and Arabic Emirates.

Afganistan is of strategic interest, not tactical. You seem completely wrapped up around the axles with 9/11 and the US.

Ok, so Iraq have nothing to do with 9/11. Afganistan have nothing to do with 9/11. Serbia is obviosly also. Then WHY you brought 9/11 here earler? Mentioning USA rights to pollute these countries with DU?

3. What have done Serbia to USA so USA feels the rights to pullute its ground by DU?

Ummm, genocide maybe? Never mind the fact that the victims of said genocide were muslims, really goes against the whole "US hates muslims" theme doesn't it?

Umh, Albania did genocide at least to same degree. Umh, now everyone knows what main genocide "proofs" were direct lie of GB and USA news agencies - not what nothing bad happened, but the scale of "genocide" was greatly exxagerated. And last, not least - number of victims to such genocide was orders of magnitude less than Iraq/Afganistan/Vietnam/etc victims of USA invasion.

But all this also have nothing to do with rights to pollute these countries with DU. Even IF Serbia actually butchered every Albanian children and Miloshevisch personally eaten them for breakfast.

By the way, Iraq did more polluting with the oil wells they destroyed than all the DU's dumped there, and the Afghans are polluting all of mankind with heroin. And Serbia wouldn't have been occupied by the UN if they weren't behaving like the Nazi's of WW2. It's all cause, and effect.

And? This somehow should give USA any right to pollute the ground with DU?

 

[Gremlin29]

Please, enlighten us where Russian troops used DU ammo during last year? During last 50 years?

Do you think the USSR left all their DU munitions at home when they made war on the peace loving peoples of Afghanistan back in the 80's? How about when they INVADED Georgia, did they leave their DU munitions back in Russia, because they are only using them when the motherland is invaded? Chechnya ring any bells? The Russians have as much DU as the US and they use it just as liberally.

Ugh, now we will invade every country which dont comply? Common, Israel would be first one, USA second. BTW, USA and its allies is by, (and i mean like BY FAR) posses largerst share of denying UN resolutions.

If you want to go on about the evil western empires, start a new thread with that as the topic.

Ok, so Iraq have nothing to do with 9/11. Afganistan have nothing to do with 9/11. Serbia is obviosly also. Then WHY you brought 9/11 here earler?

Dude, nobody here even mentioned 9/11, you did! And what it has to do with DU...I guess your the only one making that connection.

Umh, Albania did genocide at least to same degree. Umh, now everyone knows what main genocide "proofs" were direct lie of GB and USA news agencies - not what nothing bad happened, but the scale of "genocide" was greatly exxagerated. And last, not least - number of victims to such genocide was orders of magnitude less than Iraq/Afganistan/Vietnam/etc victims of USA invasion.

But all this also have nothing to do with rights to pollute these countries with DU. Even IF Serbia actually butchered every Albanian children and Miloshevisch personally eaten them for breakfast.

Typical appoligist attitude, there were a bunch of Nazi's at the end of WW2 that gushed on with the same rubbish. But again, you brought this BS up to begin with and it has nothing to do with the DU discussion.

And? This somehow should give USA any right to pollute the ground with DU?

Obviously not, but it's rather academic to complain about a scratch on your hand when your arms been amputated n'est pas? Do you even know what the levels of contamination are in Iraq from chemical weapons (used by Iraqi's against Iraqi's, and of course Iraq vs Iran) and all that oil?

 

[OPSSG]

I'm not American and I will just say what I think.

And this is the main question - why USA uses then such barbaric weapon if it don't defend its home?

Yes, USA uses DU ammo BY design. Against civilian targets or military - doesnt matter in the slightest, because right after direct combat civilians WILL travel/use/evacuate/whatever contaminated ground/vehicles/etc.

Chrom, why choose to be label one weapon/ammo with such language. You know as well as I do, all bullets, are bad for you health when shot at you (regardless whether they are made from DU or not). Even if a sabot is made from tungsten, it will still carry an environmental contamination risk. In that respect, concern for the environment arguments made by you is not valid.

Lots of other countries also make them and use them. Your lack of information on DU use by other countries (like Russia or some other country) does not preclude their production and use in those countries.

It is like using nuclear weapon. Doesnt matter that much against military or civilian targets - because in both cases civilians will suffer almost as much.

1. Iraq didnt participated in 9/11, contrary Iraq was main enemy of Islamic terrorists.

2. Afganistan had nothing to do with 9/11, at least much less than USA "ally" Saudi Arabia and Arabic Emirates.

3. What have done Serbia to USA so USA feels the rights to pullute its ground by DU?

4. And no, 9/11 dont give USA any rights to pollute the world with DU.

Guys, it's my fault that I brought up OBL and 9/11 (and it is not Chrom who first brought it up). I did not intend to be offensive to Americans about it, nor use it to justify American missteps. However, it is clear that Chrom intends to be offensive to Americans in your use of language.

I would assume that Chrom, that you are Russian. I could be equally offensive in my use of language to describe Russian actions in wars. I have not. I gave 2 mild examples, (i) use of mines, and (ii) differences in ROEs. I did not use the flowery language of morality to attack Russian actions in war. I use these examples to merely point out that Russia does not have the moral high ground.

Do not compare apple with oranges. We are speaking strictly about ecological pollution here.

...Nothing to do with any ROE, etc. It have everything to do with DU hazard and its unnecessary (from military point of view) use. Yes, DU is cheap.

You can't take the moral high ground about American DU use and complain when a third country national, like me, points out that your country's actions in war is as morally ambiguous.

 

[backlash92]

I would assume that Chrom, that you are Russian. I could be equally offensive in my use of language to describe Russian actions in wars. I have not. I gave 2 mild examples, (i) use of mines, and (ii) differences in ROEs. I did not use the flowery language of morality to attack Russian actions in war. I use these examples to merely point out that Russia does not have the moral high ground.



You can't take the moral high ground about American DU use and complain when a third country national, like me, points out that your country's actions in war is as morally ambiguous.

u cant really assume hes russian by what he says...if your right yur right but dont assume that he is, how do you know he is from russia?

 

[Feanor]

You might want to look into Russian ops this past year, as an example of how wrong you are and how succeptable to progpanda you appear to be.

Please, if you have sources on the types of ammunition that Russian peacekeeping forces actually use, I would be very interested. I think it's a safe assumption to say that some DU rounds were undoubtedly used in the summer war, but the scale of use would have to be minimal in my opinion. After all few major tank battles, or any major battles for that matter, as well as the short duration of the fighting would imply that there is little room for DU contamination.

EDIT: Oh and backlash Chrom is well known, at least from my experience, to be Russian and to be very defensive about our country. Fyi I'm also Russian, but happen to be a little more realistic. (I hope)

 

[Chrom]

Do you think the USSR left all their DU munitions at home when they made war on the peace loving peoples of Afghanistan back in the 80's? How about when they INVADED Georgia, did they leave their DU munitions back in Russia, because they are only using them when the motherland is invaded? Chechnya ring any bells? The Russians have as much DU as the US and they use it just as liberally.

Both in Afganistan and Chechny no DU ammo was used. If you have any facts about USSR/Russia regullary using DU ammo in Afganistan or Chechnya - bring it here.

If you want to go on about the evil western empires, start a new thread with that as the topic.

As much as i know only USA and GB use it, other countries use tungsten alternatives despite having DU ammo in stock.

Dude, nobody here even mentioned 9/11, you did! And what it has to do with DU...I guess your the only one making that connection.

And beheading westerners by the religiously motivated combatants and OBL's Sept 11 attack did not give the US cause for a response?

This is the phrase which started 9/11 topic. And it is NOT my phrase.

Obviously not, but it's rather academic to complain about a scratch on your hand when your arms been amputated n'est pas? Do you even know what the levels of contamination are in Iraq from chemical weapons (used by Iraqi's against Iraqi's, and of course Iraq vs Iran) and all that oil?

Sold and superwised in using by USA? Either way, this is again irrelevant. Whatever Iraq or any other country do to they ecology doesnt give any right to USA to use such toxical weapon as DU.

P.S. I'm mixed German-Russian origin, born in Russia and live/work most my live in Germany/Russia. So i know first hand West is not equal USA or GB, and most Western countries actually care about ecology or human lives much more.
Grown in Germany, i'm also a little ecological crazy as most west europeans.

Stright fact, which you cant deny:
1. DU is very toxic.

2. Only USA use DU in regular ops, despite pretty much every other country having it in stock also.

3. USA is not in any more danger than any other DU-possesing country, and do not carry any ops which require using DU ammo.

4. Conclusion. Contrary to all other countries, USA dont care about DU toxic nature and its consequenses to civilians and own soldiers health.

 

[OPSSG]

P.S. I'm mixed German-Russian origin, born in Russia and live/work most my live in Germany/Russia. So i know first hand West is not equal USA or GB, and most Western countries actually care about ecology or human lives much more.

Grown in Germany, i'm also a little ecological crazy as most west europeans.

I have no doubt that the West Europeans are the most ecologically conscious peoples in the world and I would look towards your direction on how to better safeguard our planet in this area.

I also respect the linguistic abilities of my German friends, as English is often their 2nd or 3rd language. This pre-disposes the many Germans I know to think in different modes (which is both refreshing and entertaining). One of my German friends was telling me he wished he could be less rigid/up-tight and be more carefree (be less critical). I was very amused about his self criticism of his inability to turn off his critical side.

On a more serious note, Germany is a major European power and she has to put up (do more in Afghanistan) or shut up.

Straight fact, which you cant deny:
1. DU is very toxic.

2. Only USA use DU in regular ops, despite pretty much every other country having it in stock also.

3. USA is not in any more danger than any other DU-possesing country, and do not carry any ops which require using DU ammo.

4. Conclusion. Contrary to all other countries, USA dont care about DU toxic nature and its consequences to civilians and own soldiers health.

IMHO, you should lobby for Germany to send double the troops that the Americans send and you would half the environmental risk to Afghanistan. At that time, you can complain more about the lack of environmental consciousness of the Americans, as they are currently doing a large share of the fighting. In the mean time, you should be cautious about OBL's future plans (for Europe and Germany), as every country sending troops to Afghanistan only trying to get to 2nd base in killing this cancer (because OBL is probably not there and may be having tea somewhere in Pakistan)...

 

[Gremlin29]

Please, if you have sources on the types of ammunition that Russian peacekeeping forces actually use, I would be very interested. I think it's a safe assumption to say that some DU rounds were undoubtedly used in the summer war, but the scale of use would have to be minimal in my opinion. After all few major tank battles, or any major battles for that matter, as well as the short duration of the fighting would imply that there is little room for DU contamination.

By virtue of scale I totally agree the use of DU would be much smaller than what's been seen in Iraq for example.

Both in Afganistan and Chechny no DU ammo was used. If you have any facts about USSR/Russia regullary using DU ammo in Afganistan or Chechnya - bring it here.

Facts are the Russians had and continue to have a huge stockpile of DU munitions. There's no reasonable assumption to be made that they weren't used in either location, anecdotal evidence exists DU's were used in Chechnya in some locations. Russia does not exactly have the best environmental policies within it's own borders, no disrespect intended either, it's just the way it is. The Russians do not have the same open door full disclosure that the UN does either, nor have ANY studies been carried out in either country (in the case of Afghanistan prior to US arrival. As Feanor said it best, it's a safe assumption.

P.S. I'm mixed German-Russian origin, born in Russia and live/work most my live in Germany/Russia. So i know first hand West is not equal USA or GB, and most Western countries actually care about ecology or human lives much more.
Grown in Germany, i'm also a little ecological crazy as most west europeans.

I am Russian by blood, American by birth. I do not agree with your assessment that USA or GB discount human life and that, is your biased opinion.

Stright fact, which you cant deny:
1. DU is very toxic.

Agreed

2. Only USA use DU in regular ops, despite pretty much every other country having it in stock also.

Disagree. US has used them alot, but US based on sorties/man hours of combat US has seen significantly more action than others and therfore more opportunity to use DU exists.

3. USA is not in any more danger than any other DU-possesing country, and do not carry any ops which require using DU ammo.

I disagree.

4. Conclusion. Contrary to all other countries, USA dont care about DU toxic nature and its consequenses to civilians and own soldiers health.

Disagree. I was taught long ago to never use the word "All". Have you read the UNERP report on DU?

 

[backlash92]

Please, if you have sources on the types of ammunition that Russian peacekeeping forces actually use, I would be very interested. I think it's a safe assumption to say that some DU rounds were undoubtedly used in the summer war, but the scale of use would have to be minimal in my opinion. After all few major tank battles, or any major battles for that matter, as well as the short duration of the fighting would imply that there is little room for DU contamination.

EDIT: Oh and backlash Chrom is well known, at least from my experience, to be Russian and to be very defensive about our country. Fyi I'm also Russian, but happen to be a little more realistic. (I hope)

i didnt kno he was russian...my bad. i was just saying please dont assume...but i guess that one came back to kick me in face

 

[OPSSG]

i didnt kno he was russian...my bad. i was just saying please dont assume...but i guess that one came back to kick me in face

There are lots of participants in this forum who make posts that are technically and tactically sound. I also expect to be corrected when I post, so I have no problem with your challenge on my assumption that Chrom is Russian. Chrom is a well known long time participant here and he has since clarified on his origins.

Hopefully, we will have less uniformed politically motivated rants and more information on how specific types of DU ammo is used or technical information on the advantages and disadvantages of DU ammo. It would be appreciated if you, as a new fellow participant, could include links with your posts, as they enable me to learn more.

Off topic: I am fond of the Mods, the subject matter experts and the many professional defence writers who post here (especially Abraham Gubler, Dzirhan, Tony Williams and so on, just to name a few). As they help me understand defence trends better. OTOH, what I don't like are ignorant participants (and I'm not talking about Chrom), who post assertively but really don't know what they are talking about. Long posts is not an indication of the quality of thought or research that goes into the writing. I also dislike it when ignorant participants confidently post misleading information or go off on a tangent. This reduces the quality of the writing on this forum and I see it as a form of thread pollution.

 

[backlash92]

There are lots of participants in this forum who make posts that are technically and tactically sound. I also expect to be corrected when I post, so I have no problem with your challenge on my assumption that Chrom is Russian. Chrom is a well known long time participant here and he has since clarified on his origins.

Hopefully, we will have less uniformed politically motivated rants and more information on how specific types of DU ammo is used or technical information on the advantages and disadvantages of DU ammo. It would be appreciated if you, as a new fellow participant, could include links with your posts, as they enable me to learn more.

Off topic: I am fond of the Mods, the subject matter experts and the many professional defence writers who post here (especially Abraham Gubler, Dzirhan, Tony Williams and so on, just to name a few). As they help me understand defence trends better. OTOH, what I don't like are ignorant participants (and I'm not talking about Chrom), who post assertively but really don't know what they are talking about. Long posts is not an indication of the quality of thought or research that goes into the writing. I also dislike it when ignorant participants confidently post misleading information or go off on a tangent. This reduces the quality of the writing on this forum and I see it as a form of thread pollution.

.

OK ill post links with info, thank you for telling me to do that

 

[willur]

I do believe that there is no direct link to increased cancer or deformities from the use of DU ammo, although there is a possibility that such increases are occurring because the rate of reporting and increased quality medical treatment available to more persons within the area of conflict.

only if digested or is absorbed above safe TEL by inhalation or skin.
it is alot more expensive to produce than DU penetrators.
although in testing SLAP it was found that brass had similar properties to tungsten just didn't have the same weight and tempature abilities. DU is heavier and cost effective as it uses some of the spent fuel out of reactors.

 

[Sea Toby]

When it comes to uranium people freak out. It doesn't matter if the uranium is used for good, such as health care or nuclear power. It doesn't matter is the uranium is used for bad, wars and weapons, including deleted uranium shells.

Nobody freaks out as much about other toxic chemicals. There is radiation when one steps simply outside. An orange radiates. Spend a day at the beach and you will receive more radiation than a medical scan. Ditto at an orange orchard.

Soldiers are prepared for radiation, children aren't. Maybe it will be more effective to teach children not to play in damaged tanks than using other hard metals as replacements for depleted uranium shells.

 

[Misguided Fool]

When it comes to uranium people freak out. It doesn't matter if the uranium is used for good, such as health care or nuclear power. It doesn't matter is the uranium is used for bad, wars and weapons, including deleted uranium shells.

Nobody freaks out as much about other toxic chemicals. There is radiation when one steps simply outside. An orange radiates. Spend a day at the beach and you will receive more radiation than a medical scan. Ditto at an orange orchard.

Soldiers are prepared for radiation, children aren't. Maybe it will be more effective to teach children not to play in damaged tanks than using other hard metals as replacements for depleted uranium shells.

Is anybody doing that? :

Historically speaking, American forces aren't renowed for long term foresight (disbanding the Ba'ath party, funding the taliban, agent orange spraying, levelling cities with bombs, putting civilians in guarded towns, etc etc etc).

I hope that the US government and the US army has learnt its lessons and is actively funding efforts such as school building in Iraq. It seems that this might be the case (http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23199&Itemid=225).

 

[wittmanace]

i think the point of toxicity is a combination of factors. there is the fact that the du becomes a fine dust, which then travels. this then gets into the water. according to the section on it in tom clancy's armoured warfare (not a novel, its non-fiction, a guided tour throught the 3 acr and interviews, its equipment and history), if ingested equally and all of it is ingested, one m829 apfsds could kill 10, 000 people. its use in 1991 in iraq has had a significant impact on cancer levels and birth defects in the areas it was used. im also currently looking for the award winning documentary on the topic, by ard tv, where they conducted interviews and also tests.

when the shooting starts, clearly the best tools are needed for the men and women involved to win. in this i do agree with certain members on this forum. on the other hand, in cases such as iraq, if the objective is a long term iraq, in the interests of iraq, then du can be self-defeating in several respects. one consideration is the affect on us personnel in theatre. one clip i have seen from the aforementioned documentary shows u.s. recovery crews recovering armour the team has just tested and found to be radioactive.

though we have touched on it, i think the primary reason for its use is cost. in a world where cost wouldnt matter, i suspect most nations would employ top-attack atgms (i cant find the Bill per unit cost estimates..anyone know?), and would not need to be du rounds. in practice one cannot forget that you need to have the necessary number of anti armour rounds at all times...you cant wait for the war to start, and then suddenly produce 15,000 top attack atgms...consider the pace of events in south ossetia, for example). cost is one of the primary factors here, as is density ( armour penetration performance, and velocity..note du rounds have higher velocity with less charge..this is also in the link posted previously on the m829a3 if you look closely). KE performance of du is unrivalled to the best of my knowledge.

thus the negative aspects are considerable, though not widely discussed. in the short term these negative aspects are also not the priority. on the pros side are the characteristics mentioned, at a lower cost.