Is DU Ammunition Self Defeating?

[OPSSG]

xudeen, welcome to the forum. No one else has responded as prior posts have dealt with your question below.

Well, what about the DU armor in the M1A1? Is that a health hazard for the crew?

Gremlin29 has said that DU in of itself is not a radiological hazard. So I would imagine that DU armor in day-to-day use is not a health hazard. Further, eckherl (who is American and an expert in this field) previously mentioned in another thread (see posts #544 and #546) that:

...Du inserts are used to off set the performance of certain projectiles....

Due to the health and environmental risks associated with a potential battle kill is what has kept everyone else from using it, destroyed M1s with Du plating have to be handled quite differently versus other destroyed vehicles.

What composite material is currently fielded that offers better density and protection levels over Du plates? Even Russia has stated that M1 series tanks with this protection level is a challenge with their current KE projectiles.

If I read the quotes above correctly, American M1s have an armour protection advantage against current Russian made KE projectiles. I'm sure that the Russians are working hard to improve their next generation KE projectiles.

 

[Gremlin29]

Here's a link to the UNEP report on DU in Kosovo:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/finalreport.pdf

It is very detailed, perhaps to the point of confusing folks with little to no expertise with enviornmental issues. As I understand it, this report does not substantially conclude a real risk exists and only recommends methods of cleanup and containment to err on the side of caution. Not exactly the smoking gun against DU that some of the moonbats claims.

As I know and understand DU, it is a health hazard by virtue of being a heavy metal, that most can pretty much agree upon.

Regarding armor, I've seen the info regarding M1's but also have seen sources mention that the Russians have used it on either the T-80 or T-90, can anyone comment or confirm?

 

[OPSSG]

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.

I think it is not very accurate to think that the cost of a particular type of ammo is a primary driver of military decision making. One of the main concerns is always operational effectiveness of a particular weapons system within certain terrain specific constraints.

IMHO, I would not want to employ ATGM teams in open terrain, as I want to hide them and give them a fighting chance against the approaching enemy tanks / IFVs (at terrain specific constriction points), even if these ATGM teams are armed with top attack HEAT warheads. One of my concerns is flight time of the ATGM and how easy it is for the enemy tank to locate my ATGM team.

...In gulf war one, was there a point in using them? Saddam had his tanks set up as pillboxes; an aircraft or even a HEAT round could've killed a non mobile armoured foe...

Let me begin with a quote from a captured Iraqi battalion commander, after Operation Desert Storm, who wryly commented:

‘On 17 January [1991], I started with thirty-nine tanks. After thirty eight days of aerial attacks, I had thirty-two [tanks], but in less than twenty minutes with M1A1 [Abrams main battle tank], I had zero.’​

As the quote shows, it is a fallacy to think that the Iraqi tank commanders did not know how to hide their tanks from air attacks. It is also wrong to think that the Iraqi tank commanders were stupid and employed their tanks merely as pillboxes (as their lives depended on it).

I'm a former grunt, so take my discussion on armoured warfare with a pinch of salt. However, please don't be misled by the uninformed statements made by the Misguided Fool, who claims he knows the difference in how weapons/ammo are to be used and has a smart remark to serve as cover for every deficiency / inaccuracy in his posts. Armoured battle groups using MBTs can dominate and move across open terrain very effectively and quickly. In open terrain, maximising engagement range against other MBTs can be life or death. KE or sabot rounds are used in tank vs tank engagements.

120mm KE rounds with DU penetrators (combined with the superb Abrams FCS system and superior training) gave American tank crews a decisive edge in longer range engagement and their ability to get a round off quickly in each engagement. So it is important to understand that you need the right tool/ammo for the right job (or engagement). To think of lower costs as the main reason why DU sabot rounds are used is NOT entirely accurate.

 

[Firn]

From what I have seen and read ATM and ATGM need a combination of cover, concealment and protection to be effective as part of a combined arms team. Good integrated ISR and good Recce by the units on the ground will limit their effectivness in a degree relativ to the specific situation. Artillery plays IMHO also a very important part in defeating them.

There are also ever growing problems for AT-teams. The position is easily given away - with modern panoramic muzzle flash sensors it might even be geo-localized, a very handy fact for the AFV or fire support. Soft an Hard kill systems are getting better.

So far a very fast kinetic penetrator seems to be the safest argument against MBTs in the mid-term. How safe they are I do not know, but DU seems to help them doing their main job - killing tanks.

 

[wittmanace]

I think it is not very accurate to think that the cost of a particular type of ammo is a primary driver of military decision making. One of the main concerns is always operational effectiveness of a particular weapons system within certain terrain specific constraints.

this is true, but it is a major consideration these days. look how public some acquisition debates have become in europe, eg the discussions of f-35 costs in countries like norway, the debate over iraq and afghanistan costs, and the cost of equipment in britain..

IMHO, I would not want to employ ATGM teams in open terrain, as I want to hide them and give them a fighting chance against the approaching enemy tanks (at terrain specific constriction points), even if these ATGM teams are armed with top attack HEAT warheads. One of my concerns is fight time of the ATGM and how easy it is for the enemy tank to locate my ATGM team.

true, tnis is discussed in "armoured warfare", where it states the value of these systems in recce roles, and recce and holding the ground is a major factor in the outcome of the engagement. i think we can agree that a combination of options would be necessary in terms of dealing with armour/mechanised opponents in conventional warfare (hence the use of ah-64 in cavalry divisions, organic to the div.)

Let me begin with a quote from a captured Iraqi battalion commander, after Operation Desert Storm, who wryly commented:

‘On 17 January [1991], I started with thirty-nine tanks. After thirty eight days of aerial attacks, I had thirty-two [tanks], but in less than twenty minutes with M1A1 [Abrams main battle tank], I had zero.’​

It is a fallacy to think that the Iraqi tank commanders did not know how to hide their tanks from air attacks. It is also wrong to think that the Iraqi tank commanders were stupid and employed their tanks merely as pillboxes:

it should perhaps also be noted here that these engagements around the time of 73 easting had other major factors, such as use of half charge propellant by the iraqis, the use of steel penetrators, and the imaging issues ( no thermal imaging, limited imaging on most iraqi tanks), and the fact that 73 easting ,for example, had high wind, fog as well as rain. the iraqi t-72s were strictly speaking not all weather capable...as the result showed.
we should perhaps also note that a large part of the iraqi armour we all saw pictures of burning, was hit in its retreat north, hells highway, for example, and as such were fleeing and or falling back for the defence of baghdad. this is different from failing to hide their armour during the initial air strikes, and should be seen as a separate issue. this is more reminiscent of the falaise gap.

120mm KE rounds with DU penetrators (combined with the superb Abrams FCS system) gave American tank crews a decisive edge in longer range engagement and their speed to get a round off in each engagement. So it is important to understand that you need the right tool/ammo for the right job (or engagement). To think of lower costs as the main reason why DU sabot rounds are used is NOT entirely accurate.

agreed. but i would argue cost is a factor, and the importance of that factor may be growing..especially in certain countries, and public knowledge/perception of high cost is a factor.

 

[Misguided Fool]

What the ..?

I never claim to know anything, your assumptions are purely those.

If i make a mistake, feel free to correct me as you have, i'm always willing to learn.

However, quite a few of the "mistakes" you perceive i make are in questions which i have asked INCASE i've made a mistake, to further my own knowledge (eg, is DU used in HEAT rounds? And you assumed i didn't know the difference between sabot and heat ).

However, i don't get what your issue is with me. The needless antagonism isn't nice .

Maybe i made a mistake trusting wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_tank#cite_note-53
Specifically:

he Asad Babils, like any other tank in the Iraqi inventory, were mainly employed as artillery pillboxes, rather than high-mobility combat vehicles. Indeed, the Iraqi generals wasted numerous HEAT and even sabot tank shells in indirect fire missions from reveted positions,[54] achieving nothing against coalition troops before being located and wiped out by helicopter or A-10 air strikes.

,
and the validating source on Wpedia:

^ One of the first skirmishes of the Battle of Khafji shows an example of this, with T-62s firing a barrage of 115 mm KE rounds from about 2000 yards on a Marine Observation Post (OP-4), a typical castle-like stronghold in the desert, causing some damage but without any tactical consequences, since no attempt to flank the position was made by the Iraqis (Morris, p. 74).

We've been arguing about DU over land. What about over the sea? :shudder

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....jpg/250px-Mark_149_Mod_2_20mm_ammunition.jpg (caption: 1987 photo of Mark 149 Mod 2 20mm depleted uranium ammunition for the Phalanx CIWS aboard USS Missouri (BB-63).)

What are the effects of DU falling into the sea? Or does it not matter because most of the rounds fired (for example in a CIWS) don't hit their target (Gremlin said earlier on that the DU rounds vaporise on hitting the target)?

 

[Gremlin29]

We've been arguing about DU over land. What about over the sea? :shudder

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ammunition.jpg (caption: 1987 photo of Mark 149 Mod 2 20mm depleted uranium ammunition for the Phalanx CIWS aboard USS Missouri (BB-63).)

What are the effects of DU falling into the sea? Or does it not matter because most of the rounds fired (for example in a CIWS) don't hit their target (Gremlin said earlier on that the DU rounds vaporise on hitting the target)?

Good question. I don't think there's much concern though, due to the relative vastness of the oceans. The old environmental joke is: dilution is the solution to pollution. I don't believe enough DU has been dropped in the drink to raise the levels to even a detectable limit much less a level that could cause alarm. That is of course, my non-expert opinion.

 

[Feanor]

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

I would go as far as to say that it's negligeble.

 

[OPSSG]

If i make a mistake, feel free to correct me as you have, i'm always willing to learn.

I can show that you are resistant to learning; especially when you are presented with information does not suit your existing point of view. Presentation of other facts that should trigger a re-consideration of your position have resulted in you resisting the information provided.

I'm sorry but I am not convinced that you are willing to learn.

However, i don't get what your issue is with me. The needless antagonism isn't nice .

Maybe i made a mistake trusting wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_tank#cite_note-53
Specifically: ,
and the validating source on Wpedia:

Wiki is useful as a backgrounder and is not an authoritative source. Especially, since people with your knowledge level could have written it. Further, you seem to lack the ability to contextualize the information.

You are confidently using ideas written in wiki (as your source) without citing it. This means I am free to debunk your misinformation provided and your failure to articulate in context. Using sources without citing them mean that you not only believe the information/misinformation, you are playing an active role in disseminating the misinformation. You are being corrected, nothing personal. Learn to live with the fact that you can be wrong.

 

[Misguided Fool]

I can show that you are resistant to learning; especially when you are presented with information does not suit your existing point of view. Presentation of other facts that should trigger a re-consideration of your position have resulted in you resisting the information provided.

I'm sorry but I am not convinced that you are willing to learn.

Please familiarize yourself with: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate, and more specifically: deliberation; consideration.

Wiki is useful as a backgrounder and is not an authoritative source. Especially, since people with your knowledge level could have written it. Further, you seem to lack the ability to contextualize the information.

Fair enough, but this statement is based on pure assumption. You're assuming that the specific Wiki article was written by a guy who was wrong, and your final statement is another example of pure assumption .

You are confidently using ideas written in wiki (as your source) without citing it. This means I am free to debunk your misinformation provided and your failure to articulate in context. Using sources without citing them mean that you not only believe the information/misinformation, you are playing an active role in disseminating the misinformation.

Oh? So what are you doing here? While it's likely that you aren't wrong, you're doing pretty much what you just denounced. For all i know, you could've made that quote up.

Let me begin with a quote from a captured Iraqi battalion commander, after Operation Desert Storm, who wryly commented:

‘On 17 January [1991], I started with thirty-nine tanks. After thirty eight days of aerial attacks, I had thirty-two [tanks], but in less than twenty minutes with M1A1 [Abrams main battle tank], I had zero.’

As the quote shows, it is a fallacy to think that the Iraqi tank commanders did not know how to hide their tanks from air attacks. It is also wrong to think that the Iraqi tank commanders were stupid and employed their tanks merely as pillboxes (as their lives depended on it).

You are being corrected, nothing personal. Learn to live with the fact that you can be wrong.

And you end with another assumption nfloorl:.

Forgive me if i don't take everything you say as divine dictation, as one of the concepts i've been conditioned with is to not accept everything someone tells me, no matter how professional he looks or sounds.

I don't doubt that you know what you're talking about. I end up repeating myself often when conversing with you, and i'll do it again. I'm happy to be corrected and to be proven wrong. Feel free to do so again at whatever time you deem necessary, doing exactly what you suggested i do, using sources. After all, you are a defense professional, a former soldier. However, please also remember that not everybody you speak to, me included, has the privilege of years of service and the accompanying knowledge that comes with it, and that mistakes are inevitable. You don't need to be quite so ... draconian when correcting them , especially when what you're criticizing is an open ended statement that is meant to be corrected if incorrect.

And for the final edit:

In fact, I am wondering if why I am replying to you. I shall try to resist the urge.

.

I don't know, maybe it's because you're being oddly hostile to someone you've never met before, and feel some need to defend your position?

 

[OPSSG]

Please familiarize yourself with: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate, and more specifically: deliberation; consideration...

...Oh? So what are you doing here? While it's likely that you aren't wrong, you're doing pretty much what you just denounced. For all i know, you could've made that quote up.

Edit: Misguided Fool, now you are just flame bating. Don't make accusations that I made things up and you need will to withdraw your remark! The quote you accuse me of making up can be found in Working Paper No. 122, edited by Michael Evans and Alan Ryan, which is called 'From Breitenfeld to Baghdad: Perspectives on Combined Arms Warfare' published by the Australian based Land Warfare Studies Centre.

And I cannot disagree with your POV? Especially since you have agreed that you have some objective limitations in your ability to read the information posted and understand ideas discussed?

I'm sorry but I am not convinced that you are willing to learn.

Your long off topic post above confirms my point of view.

Learn to read and cite more reputable sources.

 

[Misguided Fool]

Your long off topic post above confirms my point of view.

Learn to read and cite more reputable sources.

nfloorl:

The only thing it confirms is that i refuse to have your POV forced down my throat.

Last off topic post!:shudder

Admin: Indeed it is. This is a gentle warning about your engagement style. There is no need to behave as you have, and it behooves you to ratchet back a little. If you disagree, then make the effort to engage appropriately.

No reply is needed and if you have further issues then address the Mods directly via PM. This post and your last do not constitute acceptable posting behaviour

 

[OPSSG]

nfloorl:

The only thing it confirms is that i refuse to have your POV forced down my throat.

Last off topic post!:shudder

Off topic: You are free to hold what ever point of view you have, no matter how misguided. Please feel free impress us with your ability to cite Wiki as an authoritative source. Many forum members here know more than what is posted in Wiki (in their area of subject matter expertise) and are more than capable of pointing out limitations/errors in professional reports/articles. So try to learn. Dude! You are failing to understand the main thrust of my posts, that is why I am not convinced that you are willing to learn.

BTW, Feanor and I occasionally disagree but we have no problem getting along. Let me say again, learn to live with the fact that you can be wrong.

 

[Feanor]

Misguided Fool I feel I must interject into this debate. If you have a problem with the way that you're being corrected, feel free to ask for further sources and clarification. When someone claims you're wrong, please take the time to investigate their claim instead of responding with scalding personal remarks. Much of the time people on here know a great deal about the subject and have a well founded opinion, even if in the end you still end up disagreeing, it's still important to acknowledge why you disagree, and to make sure you fully understand what they are saying.

I understand it's very tempting to vent frustration through sarcasm and plain rudeness, but it's not constructive nor does it help keep a mature environemnt. Hence why I would like to personally ask you to remain polite and courteous about your disagreements.

 

[Preceptor]

Wiki is useful as a backgrounder and is not an authoritative source. Especially, since people with your knowledge level could have written it. Further, you seem to lack the ability to contextualize the information.

You are confidently using ideas written in wiki (as your source) without citing it. This means I am free to debunk your misinformation provided and your failure to articulate in context. Using sources without citing them mean that you not only believe the information/misinformation, you are playing an active role in disseminating the misinformation. You are being corrected, nothing personal. Learn to live with the fact that you can be wrong.

AND

Fair enough, but this statement is based on pure assumption. You're assuming that the specific Wiki article was written by a guy who was wrong, and your final statement is another example of pure assumption

Regarding the use of Wikipedia as a source on DT. As a rule, Wiki is considered a "suspect" source for information. While the specific writer of an entry or article might well be an expert on that particular topic, problems remain. The writers for entries are largely annonymous, therefore determining the qualifications is effectively not possible, as are any possible conflicts of interest. By way of example, if a LM aeronatical engineer were to submit articles on the EF Typhoon and the F-22 Raptor... The engineer would likely be expert on the topic, but could have a conflict due to his exposure and affiliations. The same could be said of a Typhoon consortium engineer writing articles on the same topics. Also with Wiki, the entries are largely open to be edited by anyone, which means available data could be added, deleted or changed and again, pretty much annonymously.

Wiki can be a good source for background material on many concepts, or for finding detailed sources on specific things, but here on DT data from it is considered suspect until proven otherwise.
-Preceptor

 

[OPSSG]

Guy, sorry but I'm still pushing for the idea that it is not very accurate to think that the cost of a particular type of ammo is a primary driver of military decision making.

The posts below deal with the issue of operational effectiveness of a particular weapons system within certain terrain specific constraints:

IMHO, I would not want to employ ATGM teams in open terrain, as I want to hide them and give them a fighting chance against the approaching enemy tanks (at terrain specific constriction points), even if these ATGM teams are armed with top attack HEAT warheads. One of my concerns is the flight time of the ATGM and how easy it is for the enemy tank to locate my ATGM team.

From what I have seen and read ATM and ATGM need a combination of cover, concealment and protection to be effective as part of a combined arms team. Good integrated ISR and good Recce by the units on the ground will limit their effectiveness in a degree relative to the specific situation. Artillery plays IMHO also a very important part in defeating them.
[OPSSG Comment: Agreed]

There are also ever growing problems for AT-teams. The position is easily given away - with modern panoramic muzzle flash sensors it might even be geo-localized, a very handy fact for the AFV or fire support.
[OPSSG Comment: Terrain and tactic driven counters are necessary]

Soft and Hard kill systems are getting better.
[OPSSG Comment: Yes, it could a problem in the near future]

So far a very fast kinetic penetrator seems to be the safest argument against MBTs in the mid-term. How safe they are I do not know, but DU seems to help them doing their main job - killing tanks.
[OPSSG Comment: Agreed]

true, this is discussed in "armoured warfare", where it states the value of these systems in recce roles, and recce and holding the ground is a major factor in the outcome of the engagement. i think we can agree that a combination of options would be necessary in terms of dealing with armour/mechanised opponents in conventional warfare (hence the use of ah-64 in cavalry divisions, organic to the div.)
[OPSSG Comment: Don't disagree, it's just me splitting hairs on the issue of context - see my post below]

Reading both your prior posts and knowing that both of you are very well read, I'm a little hesitant to post in an authoritative manner on this topic. OTOH, I also want to be clear on where and what I see differently from you. Further, I remember one of my PMs with Feanor on another matter, who encouraged me to post more on the application of specific tactics rather than just a narrow focus on the specific technology and its limitations. So here goes my 2 cents, for what it is worth (which I might add is going to be a little off topic)...

IIRC, the US Army in some trials (long ago, even before the Gulf War I) experimented with using helicopters to deploy and re-deploy ATGM teams within a brigade/division sector of operations. And that those trails were a successful validation infantry doctrines to meet an potential enemy armour threat. So it is in that sense that I am discussing using the appropriate tactics to deploy infantry ATGM teams (using HEAT warheads with a top attack profile) to achieve sector specific battlefield dominance/denial. In many countries, these ATGM teams could also have little combat engineer elements attached to add hasty obstacles and FOs (and other specialists) to map-out kill boxes and to call in indirect fires from artillery and other divisional/corps assets, like the Apaches. [Note: In relation to holding ground, these types of ATGM deployments are often determined by intent of higher command, terrain study and the intelligence collection cycle].

IMHO, armoured warfare is maneuver warfare and there are so many tactical choices available to an Armoured Battle Group (ABG) commander. In ABGs, gaining informational superiority in the recce battle plan is often a crucial element of armoured warfare. And in certain types of terrain, ATGM teams are not a substitute for tank vs tank warfare using KE rounds.

Therefore, in my above post on ATGM team deployment (and applicable to battalion/brigade level tactics for infantry), I'm not thinking about the 'recce fight' in context of armoured warfare. I'm just thinking about effective employment of ATGM teams and this idea is not limited to the deployment of ATGM teams in the context of a 'recce fight' by armoured infantry.

I hope my above post is sufficiently clear on concepts and I hope to learn much from both of you.

 

[Citgab]

My understanding of depleted uranium toxicity is that it is not primarily the result of radioactivity. It is the element itself that is toxic when inhaled or ingested, just as are other common substances such as lead, arsenic, etc.

 

[Tudor]

My understanding of depleted uranium toxicity is that it is not primarily the result of radioactivity. It is the element itself that is toxic when inhaled or ingested, just as are other common substances such as lead, arsenic, etc.

I tend to agree. However a radioactive material can be considered toxic by itself. (e.g. radioactive/toxic dust particle in the air)

"Unquestionably, bone marrow can be damaged by toxic contamination, e.g. nuclear radiation."

 

[Citgab]

I believe the risk is much overblown. The fear is based more on political manipulation that on medical facts. When compared to other common industrial and agricultural contaminants the increased risk would be almost unnoticeable. Far more civilians in the effected areas are likely to die or be disabled by other war related factors, disease, exposure, loss of medical care, malnutrition, etc.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

 

[OPSSG]

Feanor and Preceptor, many thanks to both of you for the intervention and clarification.

Misguided Fool I feel I must interject into this debate. If you have a problem with the way that you're being corrected, feel free to ask for further sources and clarification. When someone claims you're wrong, please take the time to investigate their claim instead of responding with scalding personal remarks. Much of the time people on here know a great deal about the subject and have a well founded opinion, even if in the end you still end up disagreeing, it's still important to acknowledge why you disagree, and to make sure you fully understand what they are saying.

I understand it's very tempting to vent frustration through sarcasm and plain rudeness, but it's not constructive nor does it help keep a mature environment. Hence why I would like to personally ask you to remain polite and courteous about your disagreements.

Fundamentally, I keen to discuss ideas using the conceptual tools of:

(i) analysis, and
(ii) synthesis,​

(see link for related post on the definition of these 2 conceptual tools in another DT thread). In this case, I chose to correct what I saw as important error introduced in the discussion.

IMHO, we should not proceed with our analysis on the erroneous basis (that the Iraqi army was essentially stupid during the GW), as it would limit our ability to have an effective discussion on the tactical value of using DU ammo in war. I take no pleasure in correcting Misguided Fool, as I was subject to a personal attack by him. But such faulty analysis cannot be the basis of an effective discussion and hence the need to be clear about what I saw was an error.

Most of the time, I try to keep my posts simple, to avoid unintentional exclusion of other forum members. However, it is still my hope that we can have accurate analysis to enable synthesis of new ideas in this forum.