Is DU Ammunition Self Defeating?
- Thread starter Jissy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ammunition depleted uranium
No DU plating is used on T-80 or T-90, not to say though that the newer welded turrets could not benefit from it.
No DU projectiles were used in the Georgian conflict nor would there of been a need for them.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)
Give me some examples where the U.S is currently using DU projectiles in Iraq or Afghanistan, in the initial conflict in Iraq yes, peacekeeping duties in either country no.
There are alot of countries that will continue to use DU projectiles in the event of war, and that list is long.
Only if the vehicle has been penetrated.
Would you have a source by any chance?
(I'm asking not because I don't trust you, but because a source like that might have other info, and just be an interesting read)
I'm no expert nor amateur on the matter but is there a reason they would need to use DU ammo in Iraq in it's current state? Anyway that doesn't mean they shouldn't use it in other future conflict's.
My questions are:
Are there other munitions out there that are as effective and around the same price as DU ammo?
What sort of effect's could is possibly have on the environment if it's shot at a tank/other armor?
Could it affect the crew inside the Abrams?
Cheers
My questions are:
Are there other munitions out there that are as effective and around the same price as DU ammo?
What sort of effect's could is possibly have on the environment if it's shot at a tank/other armor?
Could it affect the crew inside the Abrams?
Cheers
in terms of the crew, as has been stated, no unless it breached the armour and made it inside, in which case the crew would not be exposed to the DU long enough for it to have any major effects on them. But then again, the chances of it breaching the armour, are, well, minimal. With the tanks current design, the few shots that hit are either deflected due to the angled armour OR the armour itself can deal with it, being over a foot thick in places. Other than that, I can't answer your questions. (dislaimer: im no expert on this matter either, just replying with what I know, a more informed response would be great )
)A response to Jissy...
As I recall, it was The Lancet that recorded an Iraqi professional medical assessment that due to DU dispersal, cancer in children had risen 700% within a decade of the 1991 invasion.
On the general topic: in all activities, including the pursuit of military objectives it is critical that we focus on our objectives. If we are invading a nation to rid it of a tyrant this gesture can easily be outweighed by incidental damage to the citizens. In Yugoslavia and Iraq, we of the west seem to have done just that. But the fault is squarely with politicians, not soldiers.
As I recall, it was The Lancet that recorded an Iraqi professional medical assessment that due to DU dispersal, cancer in children had risen 700% within a decade of the 1991 invasion.
On the general topic: in all activities, including the pursuit of military objectives it is critical that we focus on our objectives. If we are invading a nation to rid it of a tyrant this gesture can easily be outweighed by incidental damage to the citizens. In Yugoslavia and Iraq, we of the west seem to have done just that. But the fault is squarely with politicians, not soldiers.
The short answer is no. DU is a superior penetrator, the substitute for DU is tungsten however it is expensive, does not exhibit the same capabilities and has been linked to Leukemia by the CDC so even that is not a "good" substitute.
The UNEP report goes into great detail on this. So far, the effects have been increased levels of DU in soil samples where DU projectiles have been found and that, is pretty much it. No other connections to health/environment degradation have been found. DU in my opinion is as someone mentioned earlier in this thread, just a boogeyman. If DU were causing alarming rates of cancer or other illnesses, it and it's constituents would show up in tissue samples and that just hasn't been the case.
My source is DOD, and what justification or reason would Russia need DU projectiles for, surely not taking on old generation Georgian armor, Russian air assets along with ground tank killer teams pretty much took care of things during the initial conflict, after that the Georgians either retreated or abandoned their armor.
DU ammunition is used against advanced armor due to the density of materials used, Tungsten does have the tendancy to mushroom or bend when fired against modern armor, this is some of the reasoning behind Germany going with a 55 caliber in length gun tube, to get extra muzzle velocity on thier DM 53 and 63 Tungsten projectiles.
DU may be a cheaper material but after you factor in the manufacturing and safety process of each projectile then you are looking at the same level of cost compared to using Tungsten.
The problem with DU is not so much of having projectiles laying around a battlefield but when you have destroyed enemy vehicles with it, this is where most of your contamination comes from, be it the destroyed vehicle itself or the soil around the vehicle that would contain soot, vehicle parts and spalling materials from the round itself. There is a reason why special procedures have to be followed on the removal of all U.S and Iraqi vehicles that have been hit by DU projectiles, procedures, suites, respirators along with testing equipment must be used, special care must be given not to kick up alot of dust in the surrounding area, we viewed each destroyed vehicle as a dirty target until proper testing could be achieved on what type of projectile was used to destroy each vehicle.
I would not place much stock in this report, that is my personal opinion on it.
wittmanace
Active Member
in the documentary i mentioned earlier in this thread (invisible war, by ard tv), there are interviews with a few notable people. one is a Dr. who was in charge of a clean up crew during the 1991 gulf war, and he clearly states that they were tasked with "cleaning up" 24 vehicles with du incidents (either hit by du rounds or du in their armour). they took three months to prep a vehicle for cleaning and three years to clean it. he also states clearly that there is a great deal of long term contamination from the use of du. this is an issue in iraq after a small number of vehicle involved, he says, and then goes on to say there is no way to clean the number of vehicles involved in kosov/serbia 1999. he also goes into some detail as to the effects of the du.
another former service woman states and shows pictures to illustrate that in the field they were instructed to wear nbc suits around battlefields (after hostilities had ended), due to du contamination, and commanders wore this under these circumstances too. she explains the symptoms of du exposure, as do other affected former personnel. there is also a part where footage is shown of the typical effects in disfigurement at birth, in both the us ( children of former service-personnel's children, also iraqi children).
there is also a segment of a german officer who explains his research in this field, specifically in Iraq. he interestingly also goes into the use of uraniuam 236, not just 238, as the old "du is natural" argument fails when you consider that uranium 236 does not exist naturally. of 18 uraniuam isotopes, it is not naturally occurring in the world. he measured the radiation from an expended round from an a-10, and found that in a day it gives the equivelant to one 30th of the safe amount per year for an adult. and that is without ingestion, or breathing in the dust, or entry of dust in a wound.
another issue pointed out in this documentary is that the half life of this uraniuam is in the region of 4 billion years, and the dust keeps blowing around, in a fine dust form. this gets into water and is ingested, or can enter wounds. the dust is so fine it lodges in the lungs, and cannot be removed.
on the other hand, it is used as 99 percent of fuel used in reactors ends up as this form of waste, so it is plentiful. (IF you already have the reactor, as a fellow member noted above). it is also denser than tungsten, but also has the property of forming burning particles upon entry into the hit tank, which is a useful property. it also expels more gas into the hit target's contained volume, expanding the gas volume lethally.
there are clearly up sides and down sides to its use, if we look at this objectively. one question one might ask is a bit like one related to the use of white phosphorous in built up areas...it is safe enough to use, but would you use it in YOUR city when you defended it? or would you object to the enemy using it in your city?
the use of tungten by other countries (noted in a previous post) suggests some do take issue with its use in the military (not just civilian reservations), as it is demonstrably more capable in its intended role than a tungsten equivelant.
on a final note, it should perhaps be noted that the doctor i mentioned in my first paragraph also made the us army video on du safety...and his views are supported by very many, including the head of the gulf war veterans association.
the video is available on google video (in seven parts):
depleted uranium alert! invisible war
http://video.google.com/videosearch...f#q=depleted+uranium+documentary+ard+tv&emb=0
another former service woman states and shows pictures to illustrate that in the field they were instructed to wear nbc suits around battlefields (after hostilities had ended), due to du contamination, and commanders wore this under these circumstances too. she explains the symptoms of du exposure, as do other affected former personnel. there is also a part where footage is shown of the typical effects in disfigurement at birth, in both the us ( children of former service-personnel's children, also iraqi children).
there is also a segment of a german officer who explains his research in this field, specifically in Iraq. he interestingly also goes into the use of uraniuam 236, not just 238, as the old "du is natural" argument fails when you consider that uranium 236 does not exist naturally. of 18 uraniuam isotopes, it is not naturally occurring in the world. he measured the radiation from an expended round from an a-10, and found that in a day it gives the equivelant to one 30th of the safe amount per year for an adult. and that is without ingestion, or breathing in the dust, or entry of dust in a wound.
another issue pointed out in this documentary is that the half life of this uraniuam is in the region of 4 billion years, and the dust keeps blowing around, in a fine dust form. this gets into water and is ingested, or can enter wounds. the dust is so fine it lodges in the lungs, and cannot be removed.
on the other hand, it is used as 99 percent of fuel used in reactors ends up as this form of waste, so it is plentiful. (IF you already have the reactor, as a fellow member noted above). it is also denser than tungsten, but also has the property of forming burning particles upon entry into the hit tank, which is a useful property. it also expels more gas into the hit target's contained volume, expanding the gas volume lethally.
there are clearly up sides and down sides to its use, if we look at this objectively. one question one might ask is a bit like one related to the use of white phosphorous in built up areas...it is safe enough to use, but would you use it in YOUR city when you defended it? or would you object to the enemy using it in your city?
the use of tungten by other countries (noted in a previous post) suggests some do take issue with its use in the military (not just civilian reservations), as it is demonstrably more capable in its intended role than a tungsten equivelant.
on a final note, it should perhaps be noted that the doctor i mentioned in my first paragraph also made the us army video on du safety...and his views are supported by very many, including the head of the gulf war veterans association.
the video is available on google video (in seven parts):
depleted uranium alert! invisible war
http://video.google.com/videosearch...f#q=depleted+uranium+documentary+ard+tv&emb=0
Last edited:
What I really was wondering was whether you had an article or a report of somekind that mentioned this, that I could read.
I guess not. Thanks anyways.The picture on the left would make a great "what not to do" slide for a safety presentation, assuming a potential exposure to DU exists in and on that M1. The guy in the bunny suit is wearing a dust mask which isn't recognized as protection against anything other than nuisence dust, the trooper isn't wearing any type of PPE at all. Appropriate PPE for a biological hazard, maybe DNA samples?
Use of DU
I will search for references if requested, but rather then make unsupported assertions, may I suggest someone dig into the death rate of US soldiers since the Gulf War. On memory, they initially sustained 70 fatalities.
A lot more than that have died since, and a great many children born to US personnel's wives have been seriously disfigured, many born without limbs, eyes and skull portions. Wives also suffer health problems, including endometriosis and cancers.
There are at least a dozen Vet's associations in the US and you may need to do the rounds. Quite honestly, the figures they gave me were so disturbing I am not prepared to quote because these must be either gross exaggerations or there is a problem with information dispersal that has serious legal implications.
If requested, I will research this, but I suspect there is a credibility issue that can only be resolved by doing this yourselves.
I will search for references if requested, but rather then make unsupported assertions, may I suggest someone dig into the death rate of US soldiers since the Gulf War. On memory, they initially sustained 70 fatalities.
A lot more than that have died since, and a great many children born to US personnel's wives have been seriously disfigured, many born without limbs, eyes and skull portions. Wives also suffer health problems, including endometriosis and cancers.
There are at least a dozen Vet's associations in the US and you may need to do the rounds. Quite honestly, the figures they gave me were so disturbing I am not prepared to quote because these must be either gross exaggerations or there is a problem with information dispersal that has serious legal implications.
If requested, I will research this, but I suspect there is a credibility issue that can only be resolved by doing this yourselves.