Is DU Ammunition Self Defeating?

[Jissy]

Depleted Uranium ammunition was developed to penetrate the hardened armour of tanks etc. It is an effective tank killer, of course, we have all seen evidence of its effectiveness in the Iraq theatre, for example.

So, although I certainly appreciate the tactical use of DP ammo, reports are now coming out of Iraq that the background radiation levels are very high, in areas DP ammo was used. Other reports are pointing to a rise in civilian abnormalities (new borns) and cancers in adults.

So, taking into account the need to effectively eliminate the enemy, with the goal being, (in Iraq's case), to free its people of tyranny, is the longer term harmful side effects of DP ammo actually causing us to win the battle, but to 'lose the war?' (that is, the hearts and minds of the people?)

Mod edit: Changed title from DP to DU
-Preceptor

[Marc 1]

Very hard question to answer - I doubt there are many on here who have the technical qualifications and can source the correct studies to comment with any authority.

[Feanor]

You're assuming that the goal of the war is to benefit the local population. What if it's not? What if you don't give a sh*t about the birth defects? ;)

A self-righteous moral crusade is all fine and dandy, but if the decision makers in question don't happen to share your morals then you're wasting your time.

[eckherl]

You're assuming that the goal of the war is to benefit the local population. What if it's not? What if you don't give a sh*t about the birth defects? ;)

A self-righteous moral crusade is all fine and dandy, but if the decision makers in question don't happen to share your morals then you're wasting your time.

Kinda like the cluster bomb debate that is currently going on, DU type projectiles can cause environmental and health issues but you still will have plenty of countries out there that will use it as a primary armor defeating projectile for tank use. This *may* change with better material process in regards to Tungsten.

[Feanor]

Isn't tungsten also toxic?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

You're assuming that the goal of the war is to benefit the local population. What if it's not? What if you don't give a sh*t about the birth defects? ;)

A self-righteous moral crusade is all fine and dandy, but if the decision makers in question don't happen to share your morals then you're wasting your time.

Because in the modern world that is usually counterproductive. Your right decision makers may not have a moral compunction about civilian casualties, but they will be very aware of the negative effects such an attitude will have. By disregarding civilian casualties you either sow the seeds for further resistance in the form of a widespread insurgency, loose the moral high ground or solidify international opposition to your military actions. All of those have tangible and significant impacts on the ground. Limiting unintended civilian effects is more than a "self righteous crusade", even though the moral implications are significant, its a realistic strategic objective in any form of contemporary (i.e. limited) warfare.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Kinda like the cluster bomb debate that is currently going on, DU type projectiles can cause environmental and health issues but you still will have plenty of countries out there that will use it as a primary armor defeating projectile for tank use. This *may* change with better material process in regards to Tungsten.

That's why I see less and less of a future for DU. You can achieve comparable effects with Tungsten Carbide, without many of the moral implications. I would assume for a non nuclear nation Tungsten is much easier and cheaper to produce/acquire?

[eckherl]

That's why I see less and less of a future for DU. You can achieve comparable effects with Tungsten Carbide, without many of the moral implications. I would assume for a non nuclear nation Tungsten is much easier and cheaper to produce/acquire?

We are getting real close to having better performance with Tungsten, especially in regards to projectile mushrooming or bending, but there are alot of countries out there that still rely on the little dirty bombs. A M829A3 projectile cannot be matched in performance at the current time, especially at ranges of 2000 meters and beyond.

[eckherl]

Isn't tungsten also toxic?

Isn`t the majority of metals toxic to either the environment or to ones health.:)

[Feanor]

Because in the modern world that is usually counterproductive. Your right decision makers may not have a moral compunction about civilian casualties, but they will be very aware of the negative effects such an attitude will have. By disregarding civilian casualties you either sow the seeds for further resistance in the form of a widespread insurgency, loose the moral high ground or solidify international opposition to your military actions. All of those have tangible and significant impacts on the ground. Limiting unintended civilian effects is more than a "self righteous crusade", even though the moral implications are significant, its a realistic strategic objective in any form of contemporary (i.e. limited) warfare.

Currently DU projectiles are used by the USA frequently, and it doesn't seem to be causing much of an uproar. In many cases it's easier to control press coverage then to change what you're doing.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Currently DU projectiles are used by the USA frequently, and it doesn't seem to be causing much of an uproar. In many cases it's easier to control press coverage then to change what you're doing.

Well I guess I was responding to a larger question of the importance of civilian casualties to decision makers at a strategic level. As was mentioned earlier there is a similar discussion with cluster munitions, and the US is moving away from those weapons with superior technology such a the sensor fused weapon. Once they can achieve comparable performance with tungsten the environmental and civilian consequences will make DU unattractive.

[Marc 1]

Isn`t the majority of metals toxic to either the environment or to ones health.:)


Yes although I don't think the majority of people when hit by ball small arms ammo die of lead poisoning:D

[Jissy]

Because in the modern world that is usually counterproductive. Your right decision makers may not have a moral compunction about civilian casualties, but they will be very aware of the negative effects such an attitude will have. By disregarding civilian casualties you either sow the seeds for further resistance in the form of a widespread insurgency, loose the moral high ground or solidify international opposition to your military actions. All of those have tangible and significant impacts on the ground. Limiting unintended civilian effects is more than a "self righteous crusade", even though the moral implications are significant, its a realistic strategic objective in any form of contemporary (i.e. limited) warfare.

Well said,
this just about sums up the scope of the poser I have put. However, with one addition, albeit an obvious one, the politicians rule our countries (one would think otherwise according to some other commentators) and once the tide of opinion starts turning against them at home, or in countries they trade with, then attitudes change and practices are altered accordingly.

What no one here has picked up upon, is the ultimate polluting nature of DU ammunition. It does not just affect the country where it is used. Of course it affects that populace most, but it also carries further through wind (contaminated dust particles) and even the hydrological cycle.

The current careless attitude of the USA (and other nations today) regarding the use of DU ammo does say a lot about their contempt for the country (and its people) that it is used in.

However, lest we forget, we are the "FREE WORLD", the supposed "good guys" who, in WW2, for instance, stomped out the totalitarian regime of Germany, and have since stood against Communism, because of its lack of regard for human rights, among which, is total control of the press.

From what I have read here, some non-military commentators do not give a toss for human rights, and that, is a very sad fact.

My father fought, as did my uncles, and grandfathers too, in WW2 and WW1, and none of these men would stand for contempt of human life. They killed when they had to, fullstop. They treated prisoners with some duty of care.

That is what made them different from the enemy, and why they felt it was so important that they fought against the nations who disregarded their creed.

We all live in a 'reasonably free' society because of their sacrifices, some people here make statements that sound reminiscent of dictatorship policy.

History is littered with examples of great nations that eventually fall, once they begin to disregard human life and decency.

I want my nation to be proud and strong, to not cower at the feet of other nations, but never at the cost of what made our way of life the envy of all the countries plagued by dictatorships.

Let us develop smart weapons, yes, not genocidal ones!

[Moebius]

To echkerl or anyone else:

Even with the advances in tungsten penetrators, DU penetrators still have pyrophoric properties. Are these properties still advantageous or are they considered superflous to requirements.

[OPSSG]

Let us develop smart weapons, yes, not genocidal ones!

Weapons are tools used by armies. It is people who commit genocide and they don't even need very advanced weapons to do that. A case in point of a modern genocidal regime, the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/pol-pot.htm) killed millions. No depleted uranium ammo was necessary for his reign of terror.

My apologies for disagreeing. From my point of view, war is to be avoided if possible, given the human cost. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that war may be necessary if war like acts are committed by an aggressor. As such, I'm not a big fan of waving the morality flag once war has commenced.

My father fought, as did my uncles, and grandfathers too, in WW2 and WW1, and none of these men would stand for contempt of human life. They killed when they had to, fullstop. They treated prisoners with some duty of care.

Don't romanticize military history. War is ugly and it should be remembered in full, otherwise please explain the fire bombing of cities by allied forces and the nukes on Japan. In my view, they were necessary actions by the allied forces but the 'necessity of these actions' does not change their character. War is ugly and we should not get used to it.

[Feanor]

From what I have read here, some non-military commentators do not give a toss for human rights, and that, is a very sad fact.


It's not that I don't care about human life. It's that the people important enough to make these decisions often do not. ;)

[Jissy]

Weapons are tools used by armies. It is people who commit genocide and they don't even need very advanced weapons to do that. A case in point of a modern genocidal regime, the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/pol-pot.htm) killed millions. No depleted uranium ammo was necessary for his reign of terror.

My apologies for disagreeing. From my point of view, war is to be avoided if possible, given the human cost. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that war may be necessary if war like acts are committed by an aggressor. As such, I'm not a big fan of waving the morality flag once war has commenced.


You do not need to apologize. Of course, I know it is the people behind the weapons, that are always the problem, and big mistakes often happen in the melee of war, however, DP ammo has such a a long half life that it will continue to affect everyone, way after the dust has settled on the war. It seems to me to be an unnecessary and careless use of a waste product from the nuclear power industry.


Don't romanticize military history. War is ugly and it should be remembered in full, otherwise please explain the fire bombing of cities by allied forces and the nukes on Japan. In my view, they were necessary actions by the allied forces but the 'necessity of these actions' does not change their character. War is ugly and we should not get used to it.

Too right, however, I was not attempting to generally 'romanticise' war, but I admit, I should have been more directed in my response, to other people's votes here, (the number one response in the poll) as their response smacked of a blindly bigoted approach, "who cares what happens to them" attitude. I was trying to foil that, (clumsily) with what I knew of family member's personal experience, (as I had not served myself) and I just know they would not cop some of the comments made, especially from people who had not served.

However, DP ammo has been flying under the radar for too long, and it really should be addressed, in my opinion. I am not aware of how much DP ammo is used, or has been, but the doco I saw, supported by a (Swedish or Swiss?) scientist, shows that it has dangerous and (very) long term side effects.

The nuclear bombing of Japan was terrible, even more disturbing was the idea that the Americans considered using them right across the mainland. However, Japan had, by the Aug 6th drop, demonstrated a distinct lack of humanity and mercy, with full intent of enslaving all they captured, so I can see a limited justification of its use. although, I would have preferred they bombed a small (uninhabited) island out of existance, as a 'shot across the bow" warning to the Emperor, after seeing it, I doubt Japan would have risked continuing hostilities, had they been shown its awsome power.

As with everything, the weakest link is mankind, both a bane and a blessing.

cheers

jissy

[Jissy]

It's not that I don't care about human life. It's that the people important enough to make these decisions often do not. ;)

Yes, very true, if these pollies etc had to sit on the front line, I dare say they (well, hopefully most) would demur regarding breaches of human rights.

cheers

jissy

[Feanor]

There are quite a few people on here who have sat on the front lines.

[nikola_281]

Nice topic to discuss about.

At the moment I don't have any stats regarding the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 but the DU ammunition was heavily used back then. It was mostly used in some areas of Kosovo and those areas fell under responsibility of Italian KFOR units after the war. 45 Italian soldiers that served with the KFOR died as victims of cancer and 515 became ill with it. There is also a high number of Serbian civilians (mostly Eastern Serbia) that are suffering greatly from effects of the DU ammo.

I just thought it was worth mentioning.

[OPSSG]

It seems to me to be an unnecessary and careless use of a waste product from the nuclear power industry...

However, DP ammo has been flying under the radar for too long, and it really should be addressed, in my opinion. I was not aware of how much DP ammo is used, or has been, but the doco I saw, supported by a (Swedish or Swiss?) scientist, shows that it has dangerous and (very) long term side effects.

In the interest of disclosure, please note that I have never been trained as not a tank crewmen and like you I am currently a civilian. Further, I don't disagree with any evidence that you can turn up to show that Depleted Uranium (DU) ammo can continue to affect the conflict area, way after the dust has settled on the war.

Thus far, DU ammo (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm) is ideal for use in armor penetrators. These solid metal projectiles have the speed, mass and physical properties to perform exceptionally well against armored targets. Currently, DU provides a substantial performance advantage, well above other competing materials. Do you know that tanks also carry other types of ammo too? Would you, if you were sitting in a tank want to out range your enemy tank? Further, what if you also knew that your enemy did not share the same environmental concerns (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2860759.stm).

I would assume that many sources who are against the use of DU ammo are not informed in the art of armoured warfare. What is their agenda? And what is yours in also promoting the same party line, without sufficiently weighing the pros and cons (and just focusing on the cons)?

Jissy, what if you (or your son, if you had one) were the ones in a tank needing to kill another modern main battle tank? And if you failed to kill your opposing tank in your first shot, you would die a horrible death (which is often the reality of being a tank crewman). Would you consider using it then? Keep in mind, every tank crewman you meet is someone else's son. :shudder

Let us look at another example of a dangerous product like explosive reactive armour (ERA) tiles often applied onto tanks. If you are infantrymen or a civilian standing near a tank and the ERA tile goes off, the effect is usually fatal on the person standing nearby. Why would some tanks still use them? Would you then want to ban the use of ERA after you have banned DU Ammo?

My view is that warfare is inherently dangerous. Don't get it started at all.

[Jissy]

In the interest of disclosure, please note that I have never been trained as not a tank crewmen and like you I am currently a civilian. Further, I don't disagree with any evidence that you can turn up to show that Depleted Uranium (DU) ammo can continue to affect the conflict area, way after the dust has settled on the war.

Thus far, DU ammo (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm) is ideal for use in armor penetrators. These solid metal projectiles have the speed, mass and physical properties to perform exceptionally well against armored targets. Currently, DU provides a substantial performance advantage, well above other competing materials. Do you know that tanks also carry other types of ammo too? Would you, if you were sitting in a tank want to out range your enemy tank? Further, what if you also knew that your enemy did not share the same environmental concerns (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2860759.stm).

I would assume that many sources who are against the use of DU ammo are not informed in the art of armoured warfare. What is their agenda? And what is yours in also promoting the same party line, without sufficiently weighing the pros and cons (and just focusing on the cons)?

Jissy, what if you (or your son, if you had one) were the ones in a tank needing to kill another modern main battle tank? And if you failed to kill your opposing tank in your first shot, you would die a horrible death (which is often the reality of being a tank crewman). Would you consider using it then? Keep in mind, every tank crewman you meet is someone else's son. :shudder

Let us look at another example of a dangerous product like explosive reactive armour (ERA) tiles often applied onto tanks. If you are infantrymen or a civilian standing near a tank and the ERA tile goes off, the effect is usually fatal on the person standing nearby. Why would some tanks still use them? Would you then want to ban the use of ERA after you have banned DU Ammo?

My view is that warfare is inherently dangerous. Don't get it started at all.

Actually, in my opening address on the subject, I clearly state that I know why DU ammo is used, and that it is an extremely effective tank killer, and that I totally understand why it is preferred. (I have seen photos of tanks hit by DU)

All your other gross assumptions about me, e.g.; "promoting the same party line, without sufficiently weighing the pros and cons" etc, are condescending in the extreme!

I am not an 'anti-military', as you surreptitously suggest, quite the contrary, I am a full blooded supporter of a nation being able to fully defend itself (which we cannot do) and I dearly wish we had the money and personnel to float three carriers, at least, and have our own industry building and developing aircraft for our particular needs. (who knows, if we had all that, we might be able to defend PNG one day....)

My point is, if we really wish to protect our way of life, and others, and work towards a future that is safer, in all ways, why not demand the defense industry develop a safer alternative to DU?


I know they can do it, given the right incentives. EMP springs to mind.

Besides, I also thought aircraft would deal with tanks fairly effectively with their higher explosive loads and they are usually way out of reach of a tank. Satellite tech. allows very high res. of the ground, (they can read a newspaper headline for example) and computer tech. programmes can search for and help target tanks and other hardware, so tanks, really, are a very bad choice of defense against, say, the USA. But, they help support the amrs manufacturers, and the populace loves to see a good old big tank! (I do too, of course!) Oh, and as for ERA tiles, easily fixed, don't stand next to the ruddy tank!

If we are to carry on whinging about "saving the planet" it seems irrrational to then demand we continue to use DU ammo, as it stays around and continues to kill, albeit slowly, meaning, to use your own phrase back at you, "or your son, if you had one" and his/her descendants will be affected by the wholesale widespread use of DU eventually. No one wants their offspring to be deformed, do they?

By the way, I do know tank crewmen, and fully understand their concerns and what they face.

Stating, as a counter to the argument against DU, that 'all wars are inheritantly dangerous', appears to be a disingenuous ploy on your part, and is avoiding the real issues under all this.

We all know wars are dangerous, what needs to be addressed is the fact that arms manufacturers are using DU, (with govt. support probably because it helps reduce nuclear waste), and, it is obviously (currently) the cheapest and most effective ammo for its use, compared to developing other forms of effective attack that are not going to continue to affect anyone and everyone for the next 300 years.

Wars are often started with the justification of defending morality and the sanctity of human life, (the real reasons, usually, are control of assets, of course), so, why the pollies play that game, we should all be demanding they use weapons that do not continue to pollute the planet and also endanger the military personnel that come into direct contact with them!.

cheers

jissy

[Jissy]

Nice topic to discuss about.

At the moment I don't have any stats regarding the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 but the DU ammunition was heavily used back then. It was mostly used in some areas of Kosovo and those areas fell under responsibility of Italian KFOR units after the war. 45 Italian soldiers that served with the KFOR died as victims of cancer and 515 became ill with it. There is also a high number of Serbian civilians (mostly Eastern Serbia) that are suffering greatly from effects of the DU ammo.

I just thought it was worth mentioning.

Thanks for that, I didn't know actually. The doco I saw only dealt with Iraq. The longer everyone allows DU ammo to be used, the more it will be used and on an increasingly wider area. We must get something to replace it, to my mind, and the quicker the better.

cheers

jissy

[Jissy]

There are quite a few people on here who have sat on the front lines.

Yes, I know.. and they often advertise the fact under their avatar.

cheers

jissy

[OPSSG]

Actually, in my opening address on the subject, I clearly state that I know why DU ammo is used, and that it is an extremely effective tank killer, and that I totally understand why it is preferred. (I have seen photos of tanks hit by DU)

Jissy, first off, I am not trying to address you in a condescending manner and if you think so, I will simply stop responding to your posts as I'm not a fan of getting into flame wars.

Secondly, I don't quite share the same assumptions that you do, hence, I have to try to be clear about why I disagree. No disrespect is intended but you have not contributed any significant information in the discussion on DU ammo alternatives. And I am a fan of using the right tool (or ammo) for the right job.

All your other gross assumptions about me, e.g.; "promoting the same party line, without sufficiently weighing the pros and cons" etc, are condescending in the extreme!

It's an objective statement in the sense you are clearly pro-banning DU ammo. Please list the tactical cons of doing so for Australia/US and then list the alternatives and their performance characteristics. When you do so, you would have done your research. Only at that time can you claim to have weighed the pros and the cons. You have thus far looked at the cons. What are the pros?

I am not an 'anti-military', as you surreptitously suggest, quite the contrary, I am a full blooded supporter of a nation being able to fully defend itself (which we cannot do) and I dearly wish we had the money and personnel to float three carriers, at least, and have our own industry building and developing aircraft for our particular needs. (who knows, if we had all that, we might be able to defend PNG one day....)

I'm not even suggesting that you are 'anti-military'. If I thought you were 'anti-military', I would not have even responded to your post. Further, I find that you are using a strawman argument to enter into a debate (let us talk about how we feel honestly and openly).

You are however not fully articulating in a balanced manner the other side of the coin.

My point is, if we really wish to protect our way of life, and others, and work towards a future that is safer, in all ways, why not demand the defense industry develop a safer alternative to DU?

Yes, I actually believe that the defense industry is seeking some alternatives but the alternatives are not as yet as powerful. BTW, can you do some research in this area and inform your fellow forum member?

Are you seeking donations to sent up a fund so as to develop a more effective tank round that does not use DU?

Do you know that in another military forum, the forum members are actually banding together to buy medical supplies for their own country's soldiers, as they have discovered that their medics are not well equipped. And that Asian country is facing an active and current insurgency. Do you know which country I am talking about? The members of that forum are working towards becoming responsible stakeholders. Likewise, Singapore based military forums are working on being responsible stakeholders too and there is active debate on what constitutes responsible stakeholder-ship.

What can you as an individual do (if you don't like DU ammo)? :D

I know they can do it, given the right incentives. EMP springs to mind.

How would you employ an EMP weapon? Is it available and deployed by the ADF?

Besides, I also thought aircraft would deal with tanks fairly effectively with their higher explosive loads and they are usually way out of reach of a tank. Satellite tech. allows very high res. of the ground, (they can read a newspaper headline for example) and computer tech. programmes can search for and help target tanks and other hardware, so tanks, really, are a very bad choice of defense against, say, the USA.

If any country has the will or the ability to challenge Australia in open armoured warfare, it must be a capable opponent. Such potential capable armoured opponents could include China, India or Pakistan (though conflict with any of them is very, very unlikely at the moment). What about a war between N. Korea and S. Korea? If it happens, would Australian troops and tanks be involved? What about China and Taiwan? If war happens, would Australian troops and tanks be involved?

We have to recognize that the US is in elegant decline (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200711/america-decline) and that other countries that are pro-US countries (like Australia) have to step-up to fill the void emerging in the global commons. In particular, the security environment in Asia is dynamic and changing.

I for one am actually worried about the decline of the US.

Oh, and as for ERA tiles, easily fixed, don't stand next to the ruddy tank!

At times, soldiers do need to operate beside them and I am worried about ERA tiles. :D

If we are to carry on whinging about "saving the planet" it seems irrational to then demand we continue to use DU ammo, as it stays around and continues to kill, albeit slowly, meaning, to use your own phrase back at you, "or your son, if you had one" and his/her descendants will be affected by the wholesale widespread use of DU eventually. No one wants their offspring to be deformed, do they?

By the way, I do know tank crewmen, and fully understand their concerns and what they face.

When you put it that way. No. But for the tank crew to have off spring, the tank crew must get through the initial shooting war alive. I am aware of my own country's defensive strengths and weaknesses, but I suspect you may be less aware of your own country's vulnerabilities.

Please don't tell me you know tank crewmen. It's pointless statement. I can also tell you that my family has former tank commanders, armoured recce senior leadership and armoured infantry troopers... Does this listing enrich the the discussion?

I encourage you to do even more research. Kindly inform us of the alternatives rather than just rant. You can start by having links in your posts to show that you have done more research than watch a documentary. I have shown you enough respect by including 2 links in my prior post. Care to show me that you care to do the same.

[Jissy]

Jissy, first off, I am not trying to address you in a condescending manner and if you think so, I will simply stop responding to your posts as I'm not a fan of getting into flame wars.

Secondly, I don't quite share the same assumptions that you do, hence, I have to try to be clear about why I disagree. No disrespect is intended but you have not contributed any significant information in the discussion on DU ammo alternatives. And I am a fan of using then right tool (or ammo) for the right job.



It's an objective statement in the sense you are clearly pro-banning DU ammo. Please list the tactical cons of doing so for Australia/US and then list the alternatives and their performance characteristics. When you do so, you would have done your research. Only at that time can you claim to have weighed the pros and the cons. You have thus far looked at the cons. What are the pros?



I'm not even suggesting that you are 'anti-military'. If I thought you were 'anti-military', I would not have even responded to your post. Further, I find that you are using a strawman argument to enter into a debate (let us talk about how we feel honestly and openly).

You are however not fully articulating in a balanced manner the other side of the coin.



Yes, I actually believe that the defense industry is seeking some alternatives but the alternatives are not as yet as powerful. BTW, can you do some research in this area and inform your fellow forum member?

Are you seeking donations to sent up a fund so as to develop a more effective tank round that does not use DU?

Do you know that in another military forum, the forum members are actually banding together to buy medical supplies for their own country's soldiers, as they have discovered that their medics are not well equipped. And that Asian country is facing an active and current insurgency. Do you know which country I am talking about? The members of that forum are working towards becoming responsible stakeholders. Likewise, Singapore based military forums are working on being responsible stakeholders too and there is active debate on what constitutes responsible stakeholder-ship.

What can you as an individual do (if you don't like DU ammo)? :D



How would you employ an EMP weapon? Is it available and deployed by the ADF?



If any country has the will or the ability to challenge Australia in open armoured warfare, it must be a capable opponent. Such potential capable armoured opponents could include China, India or Pakistan (though conflict with any of them is very, very unlikely at the moment). What about a war between N. Korea and S. Korea? If it happens, would Australian troops and tanks be involved? What about China and Taiwan? If war happens, would Australian troops and tanks be involved?

We have to recognize that the US is in graceful decline and that other countries that are pro-US countries (like Australia) have to step-up to fill the void emerging in the global commons. In particular, the security environment in Asia is dynamic and changing.

I for one am actually worried about the decline of the US.



At times, soldiers do need to operate beside them and I am worried about ERA tiles. :D



When you put it that way. No. But for the tank crew to have off spring, the tank crew must get through the initial shooting war alive. I am aware of my own country's defensive strengths and weaknesses, but I suspect you may be less aware of your own country's vulnerabilities.

Please don't tell me you know tank crewmen. It's pointless statement. I can also tell you that my family has former tank commanders, armoured recce senior leadership and armoured infantry troopers... Does this listing enrich the the discussion?

I encourage you to do even more research. Kindly inform us of the alternatives rather than just rant. You can start by having links in your posts to show that you have done more research than watch a documentary. I have shown you enough respect by including 2 links in my prior post. Care to show me that you care to do the same.

Hi there OPSSG,
I don't like petty banter either, so let's not fall into that trap.

My poser was trying to get others here, with far more knowledge and experience than I will ever have, to firstly contemplate the vexing issue of DU and hopefully come up with some ideas.

And yes, I quite clearly do not like DU ammo, because of its potentially dangerous long term side effects for the handler and environment it is used in. Also, it is an OH&S issue for the employer, soldiers have enough dangers without adding potential side effects of handling DU.

You ask that I present a more balanced view, giving both sides of the coin, like the pros of using DU, (besides its one shot tank killer properties, excellent as that is) I cannot see any others frankly. I stated what I saw as an alternative (attack method) in my previous answer, using aircraft and satellite etc.

I will admit this, if we ended up in a fight where the enemy was known to have DU ammo, we would have to be prepared to use it too, if air support could not take all the threats out first. But then, post hostilites, we should clean it up.

The reason I mentioned I knew tank crewmen was to illustrate that I was aware of their concerns, and only did so after your response with a 'what if' it was your son in a tank.


I am not a military expert on munitions and the terminology, like some on this site, so it is of no use for me to try to appear that I 'know stuff'. I am waiting for those more knowledgeable to enlighten me, and others here, on the pros and cons, and the possibilities of alternatives.

The 'pros', I have already stated, I put this forth in my opening statement, it kills heavily armoured targets effectively. At the moment, I just see the cons outweighing. I just wish we had an alternative in operation.

You list what others are doing, in a pro-active way, for their defense forces and personnel. Excellent, I am glad there are positive, pro-active members here, that gives the community a very high worth in my mind and I applaud those involved.

There is more than one country in SE Asia that has insurgency problems, and other potential security threats. We are well aware of all that, "down under", particularly as we live next door the world's largest (population) Muslim country, and of that, according to the Interior Minister some years back, "only 2% are radical" (ie: 2 million)...

EMP weaponry? It is publicly known it has been in development. I have read various (publicly available) articles on the subject over the years, and naturally, the area is full of conjecture as to how it is harnessed and potential deployment in a war setting, if at all. Beyond that, even if I did have anything more particular to say, I certainly would not do so. I am sure, when it is all worked out, we will all hear about it after it is used in a declared operation.

As for what am I going to do? Keep asking questions and, hopefully, gain some creative insights and suggestions that may prove constructively beneficial. I will then lobby appropriately, as I have done in the past.

I know we are not going to stop using DU ammo, not until we can swap it with something as effective, that isn't as dangerous to handle etc. The point is, if no one talks about it and opens up debate, then status quo will continue.

Our forces deserve better than a blind eye to an increasing problem.

As for Oz in a shoot out, I completely agree, it is highly unlikely (and extremely foolhardy) that we will be in a war with our second biggest trading partner, nor with any of our fellow Commonwealth members and cricketers to boot! However, our devotion to the States does lead us to make dubious choices, like entering Iraq, and ordering equipment like the heavy Abrams battle tanks. For our local region, according to the pundits, they are not a good choice. We need an effectively equipped deterrent force that can operate in local regions.

What I am sure of, until we, Australia, are strong enough to deal with potential security issues in our own local region, (and I am not talking about the regional superpower China here), so we can militarily take care of ourselves without outside assistance, (WW2 should have taught us that, but thank God for America!) we will remain silent as to the actions of others in our region, even when human rights abuses occur. East Timor being the exception, but then, oil lurks underwater there abouts... Papua and "Irian Jaya" (West Papua) are quite another matter.

Besides, we can also utilize our forces in many humanitarian ways, as we (partly) effectively did in the tsunami crisis. But we still could have done more, if we had more state of the art equpiment, instead of cutting corners that cost lives, like the chopper (mechanical failure) accident in Indonesia.

As for knowing our weaknesses, militarily, all that has been discussed openly in the press for years. My main point is, as we are an island continent, in my humble lay-person opinion, we need aircraft carriers, three is ideal, according to another discussion on this site. We also need other effective amphibious caft, some of which we are getting, according to the chat on the relevant site here. We do have some strengths too, of course, that mainly being the capability of our highly trained personnel, frontline and in support. I know our SAS are highly regarded by our Allies, for instance. We just need more of them!

To further illustrate our resourcefulness, we kept the F111 flying in an effective and active readiness sense longer than America, (due to budget constraints of course) and to do so, we developed a boron patch, to keep it together when stress fractures appeared. Aussies are resourceful and highly innovative, inventive and creative.

I look forward to our Defense White Paper, coming out very soon, but, in the press today, it appears the budget razor gang will cut back our military expenditure. That is to be much lamented, and quite possibly very short sighted.


and I take your criticism in tow; I will try to post relevant links in future, but time, as always, can be difficult to find, and not all I refer to is available online.

cheers
jissy

[Feanor]

OPSG I think the key difference that can be made between the dangers of war and DU ammo is that the DU has residual effects long after the fighting has subsided. In this way it is similar to chemical weapons, and land mines, both of which there is a considerable international effort to ban.

[OPSSG]

And yes, I quite clearly do not like DU ammo, because of its potentially dangerous long term side effects for the handler and environment it is used in. Also, it is an OH&S issue for the employer, soldiers have enough dangers without adding potential side effects of handling DU.

As for what am I going to do? Keep asking questions and, hopefully, gain some creative insights and suggestions that may prove constructively beneficial. I will then lobby appropriately, as I have done in the past.

I know we are not going to stop using DU ammo, not until we can swap it with something as effective, that isn't as dangerous to handle etc. The point is, if no one talks about it and opens up debate, then status quo will continue.

OPSSG I think the key difference that can be made between the dangers of war and DU ammo is that the DU has residual effects long after the fighting has subsided. In this way it is similar to chemical weapons, and land mines, both of which there is a considerable international effort to ban.


News flash guys, I am also not a fan of DU ammo because of the potential health risk it poses to troops. I just have not said so clearly before. However, I do not criticize its use at the moment, given the performance limitations of the current alternatives and the same risk of heavy metals exposure. Hopefully, viable alternatives is round the corner.

You will find that in general tank crews take appropriate precautions around DU tank kills but some rear echelon guys may not be as smart.

BTW, asking questions without taking the trouble to develop some conceptual knowledge on a specific field leads to confusion and circular thinking. My suggestion to you is to read posts in this forum (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=170978#post170978) and seek out new information - don't rant. You have not posted much information. You have posted more rants. :rolleyes:

You ask that I present a more balanced view, giving both sides of the coin, like the pros of using DU, (besides its one shot tank killer properties, excellent as that is) I cannot see any others frankly. I stated what I saw as an alternative (attack method) in my previous answer, using aircraft and satellite etc.

Please forgive me for stating the obvious. Air superiority alone is often not enough, that is why you still need ground forces. In Australia's case, your country has made some decisions which essentially are trade-offs (and you will need to be aware of that) for operational concept and cost reasons. Your defence forces will carry the consequence of these decisions. Every decision has its pros and cons. You will need to understand cons within the ADF's force structure design.

You should also find out about the difference in the technology in targeting pods used in Australian Super Hornets and the Sniper pods used in the F-15SGs and why Singapore is retro-fitting some Sniper pods on our F-16s. In this forum, many participants understand the difference. I hope in time, as you read more, you will understand the difference.

Despite having only about half of Australia's defence budget, Singapore maintains a much larger armoured force that is integrated into our combined arms divisions.

Q: Why is this so?

Ans: We do this because we have a different defence needs based on different defence scenario planning requirements.

In most circumstances, I would expect in a time of war, for both Australian and Singapore forces to fight side by side (with complementary capabilities). Please note how they different and how they are complementary. However, due to the design limitation of the SAF (the chief of which is the use of conscripts), these armoured warfare capabilities have limited utility in long term overseas deployments. And Singapore cannot simply change our defence posture without taking into consideration the concerns of our neighbours. Going the all volunteer route for the SAF would dramatically change our defence posture and the balance of power/terror in maritime Southeast Asia.

Many mainstream journalists do not have the conceptual knowledge (in war fighting concepts) or technical knowledge to understand the difference. These differences may mean the difference in life or death.

I will admit this, if we ended up in a fight where the enemy was known to have DU ammo, we would have to be prepared to use it too...

Most countries do not have the logistics capabilities to prepare for all reasonably foreseeable scenarios.

Is it viable to have one set of ammo for non-DU using potential enemy and another set of ammo for DU using potential enemy? Your tax payers interacting with your defence professionals will need to decide.

But then, post hostilities, we should clean it up.

What if post major hostilities is a long term troubled peace? With IEDs going off every week? I'm not a fan of blind idealism, though I am a fan of having some sense of personal capacity for change.

The reason I mentioned I knew tank crewmen was to illustrate that I was aware of their concerns, and only did so after your response with a 'what if' it was your son in a tank.

I understand your response. But you should always assume that when you deploy your army (even for 'peacekeeping') you are sending someone's son into potential harm's way. I have previously posted a link to an interesting article on 'Australia’s East Timor Experience: Military Lessons and Security Dilemmas' by James Cotton (http://www.nids.go.jp/english/dissemination/other/symposium/pdf/sympo_e2002_10.pdf). In particular, what was the role of the TNI in East Timor during the INTERFET deployment (as described by James Cotton)? Was there the danger of a shooting war between TNI and the Australian led INTERFET? Kindly also see an Australian link for a different perspective (http://www.australian-news.com.au/EastTimor.htm).

Our forces deserve better than a blind eye to an increasing problem.

As for Oz in a shoot out, I completely agree, it is highly unlikely (and extremely foolhardy) that we will be in a war with our second biggest trading partner, nor with any of our fellow Commonwealth members and cricketers to boot! However, our devotion to the States does lead us to make dubious choices, like entering Iraq, and ordering equipment like the heavy Abrams battle tanks. For our local region, according to the pundits, they are not a good choice. We need an effectively equipped deterrent force that can operate in local regions.

What I am sure of, until we, Australia, are strong enough to deal with potential security issues in our own local region, (and I am not talking about the regional superpower China here), so we can militarily take care of ourselves without outside assistance, (WW2 should have taught us that, but thank God for America!) we will remain silent as to the actions of others in our region, even when human rights abuses occur. East Timor being the exception, but then, oil lurks underwater there abouts... Papua and "Irian Jaya" (West Papua) are quite another matter.

Besides, we can also utilize our forces in many humanitarian ways, as we (partly) effectively did in the tsunami crisis. But we still could have done more, if we had more state of the art equipment, instead of cutting corners that cost lives, like the chopper (mechanical failure) accident in Indonesia.

As for knowing our weaknesses, militarily, all that has been discussed openly in the press for years. My main point is, as we are an island continent, in my humble lay-person opinion, we need aircraft carriers, three is ideal, according to another discussion on this site. We also need other effective amphibious caft, some of which we are getting, according to the chat on the relevant site here. We do have some strengths too, of course, that mainly being the capability of our highly trained personnel, frontline and in support. I know our SAS are highly regarded by our Allies, for instance. We just need more of them!

...

I look forward to our Defense White Paper, coming out very soon, but, in the press today, it appears the budget razor gang will cut back our military expenditure. That is to be much lamented, and quite possibly very short sighted.

and I take your criticism in tow; I will try to post relevant links in future, but time, as always, can be difficult to find, and not all I refer to is available online.

Most of the main stream press does not understand defence needs or planning. Many within mainstream press are more interested in increasing viewship/readership and reporting on 'human interest' stories with a short cycle focus on reporting of 'scandals'. Or what I would call fast food news. Please be aware of their not so informed agenda and take their 'facts' with a pinch of salt.

You have a large number of assumptions in the above posts. Too many to deal with. Read before posting and check your 'facts'. You do not seem to do that.

The ADF is both more capable that you think and at the same time it has more limitations because of its force structure than you know about. Please see the other prior posts on regional military capabilities. You can read the NBR Analysis (Vo. 14, No. 2, Aug 2003) titled 'Theater Security Cooperation in the U.S. Pacific Command: An Assessment and Projection' by Sheldon W. Simon (http://www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=ce6e6e75-62eb-4f7b-8311-626b2eba2bb6) and another article on the limits of the Australian and US alliance (http://www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=328), if you are interested in regional developments.

[Misguided Fool]

Just a question - what is the cost of a DU round compared to a non DU one? Is DU used exclusively for SABOT? What happens in HEAT rounds?

HEAT rounds have been proven to be very effective .. instead of DU, why not just use HEAT? (just a question!)

I'm sure i read somewhere on this site that one DU destroyed tank takes a huge amount of money to clean up.

I'm a student of economics and i'll thus take an economist's tone.

The marginal private cost (to the army, in effect) is far less than the marginal social cost (to everybody). The cost of cleaning up that destroyed by DU tank is far more than the cost of producing and firing that one DU round. Surely, any side will be willing to realise that the harm done is greater than the benefit gained?

I guess the question i'm asking is, how many tanks and tank crews are worth the huge cost of cleanup, associated environmental hazards and social concerns that arise (eg treating those with cancer). OPFDS has suggested that many alternatives are around the corner. Doesn't it thus make sense to use weaker ammunition in the main battlegrounds where DU rounds were used, in Iraq and Afghanistan (where there is almost no armoured enemy component)?

[backlash92]

i think that we continue to use DU rounds because of its effectiveness...if u go back to what feanor said, the army really doesnt care about the people its attacking. You also have to look at the effectivness. the DU round explodes at a higher rate right? (im not positive so correct me if im wrong) the HEAT round explodes in a fist-to finger way so you would have to hit the armoured vehicle in the engine of somwhere specific instead of just pointing and shooting as with the DU round

[Gremlin29]

I think to discuss this intelligently the first thing to clear up is the radiological aspect of DU. Quite simply, this material is not a radioligical hazard.

The hazardous aspect of DU is that it is a heavy metal, which our bodies can not metabolize. Same sort of health affects seen from lead, chromium arsenic and other heavy metals exposures. DU dust, oxides etc points of entry are inhalation, consumption, and contact. DU Sabot rounds are vaporized on contact so you get DU dust, hexavalents, oxides and associated contamination in and around the points of impact. The dust and vapors can be further distributed by wind and so forth. Most of you can go to your local police stations indoor firearms range and be exposed to equally harmful doses of lead. 99% of them are grossly contaminated.

DU munitions are not limited to US sabot rounds either. China, Russia, and numerous other countries utilize DU munitions. In addition, just about anything 20mm on up is using DU in their AP rounds, land sea and air systems included. I could be wrong but I believe the operational use of DU was started by the A-10 program.

Now it would be great if the entire world would agree to ban DU but I personally think it would be lip service to agree to do so, and a disservice to our war fighters to take away anything that gives them an advantage or worse, disadvantages them.

[backlash92]

i agree with Gremlin29 when he stated that it would be great if we could ban DU because of its nuclear status as a hazard to people but it would take away the advantage we have because HEAT rounds arnt as effective as the DU rounds

[xudeen]

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

[OPSSG]

i agree with Gremlin29 when he stated that it would be great if we could ban DU because of its nuclear status as a hazard to people but it would take away the advantage we have because HEAT rounds aren't as effective as the DU rounds

Misguided Fool and backlash92, I hope you can read up on the differences between the types of ammo and the different type of targets they are used for before posting. I am impatient with some of the posts of this thread, as the quality of the discussion has remained at a consistently low level. On occasion, when someone raises the bar of the discussion, it seems to be brought down 3 notches immediately. Please do a google search and spend at least 5mins reading before posting, as the information is out there.

...HEAT rounds have been proven to be very effective .. instead of DU, why not just use HEAT? (just a question!)...

Please read up on some basics on 120mm ammo (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/120.htm) before even dealing with tank killing 30mm DU ammo used in the A-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger) aircraft:

(i) Sabot rounds or kinetic energy penetrators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator) use sheer momentum to penetrate the thickest armor found in other MBTs. IIRC, the M829A1 is a common anti-tank weapon used by the Abrams tanks during Desert Storm. This type of round usually uses a DU penetrator. Please note that a tungsten penetrator is also available for export sale (its just that the DU penetrator is more effective). This type of ammo sometimes nicknamed the "Silver Bullet", as it is designed to penetrate the armour in other MBTs. If I am not wrong the current sabot round used is the M829A3 (and there are other professionals who will correct me if I am wrong) which was introduced in 2003. While sabot rounds have great penetration, they don’t do a lot of damage outside the immediate area of impact. Sabots rounds are also of little use in urban combat. In general, tank crews do not use sabot rounds against infantry/insurgents.

(ii) HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti Tank and HEAT rounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_anti-tank) are 'multipurpose' rounds that use a 'shaped charge' in them (kindly note that there are also other types of HE rounds). In fact, the US also uses HEAT-Multi Purpose-Tracer rounds. HEAT rounds are used for a different purpose from sabot rounds. Misguided Fool, please find out and read what they are for. If you notice, pictures of Strykers tend to show that they have slats (or grills) mounted on them. These slats are a low cost way to defeat infantry/insurgent fired anti-tank weapons, which usually have HEAT warheads.

For Leopard 2 tank users with the L44 barrel, the DM63 KE Cartridge (Rheinmetall) (http://defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm) is one of the many advanced sabot rounds with tungsten penetrators around. The DM63 round has a modified propulsion-based Temperature Independent Propulsion System (TIPS). The new type uses 8.45 kg of pure bulk powder to achieve nearly the same muzzle velocity of the DM53 (1,650 m./sec on L44 barrel). The propellant modifications aimed at improving the accuracy through a wide operational temperatures (-46 +63C) ensuring safe operation extreme climate zones, and minimizing the erosion of the barrel.

[Jissy]

Just a question - what is the cost of a DU round compared to a non DU one? Is DU used exclusively for SABOT? What happens in HEAT rounds?

HEAT rounds have been proven to be very effective .. instead of DU, why not just use HEAT? (just a question!)

I'm sure i read somewhere on this site that one DU destroyed tank takes a huge amount of money to clean up.

I'm a student of economics and i'll thus take an economist's tone.

The marginal private cost (to the army, in effect) is far less than the marginal social cost (to everybody). The cost of cleaning up that destroyed by DU tank is far more than the cost of producing and firing that one DU round. Surely, any side will be willing to realise that the harm done is greater than the benefit gained?

I guess the question i'm asking is, how many tanks and tank crews are worth the huge cost of cleanup, associated environmental hazards and social concerns that arise (eg treating those with cancer). OPFDS has suggested that many alternatives are around the corner. Doesn't it thus make sense to use weaker ammunition in the main battlegrounds where DU rounds were used, in Iraq and Afghanistan (where there is almost no armoured enemy component)?


Thanks for the addition to this discussion,
I am not a military person, so your enquiries would be better suited to a member that has knowledge in that specialised area, usually a moderator, (who has military service in some form notated under their avatar), although, many non-military enthusiasts on this site would also have a huge amount of knowledge to share.

I agree with your purview, but it comes down to political will demanding the arms industry take note of our social and environmental concerns, this all must be balanced with best performance and soldier protection (eg: Is the opposing army using DU? as pointed out above by a member), and most importantly budget, (your area of expertise) as any of the serving and/or post serving members here would argue, all these concerns must be factored into the decision.

However, having said that, it does appear to be 'overkill' to use DU ammo in say, Afghanistan, if that is what is happening? Initially, in Iraq, it could be justified, but the army very quickly disappeared, leaving all the big hardware, and it turned into a guerilla warfare scenario (not too dissimilar to Vietnam), in some enemy tactics. DU ammo really was not needed after the Iraqi standing army was effectively opposed. If the army continued its use after that initial assault, that might smack a little of military-industrial economic demands for its use, rather than need?

However, I have not seen a report stating DU ammo was continued to be used, nor a report stating it is being used in Afghanistan, maybe someone here knows of such and can supply link here?

cheers

jissy

[Chrom]

Just a question - what is the cost of a DU round compared to a non DU one? Is DU used exclusively for SABOT? What happens in HEAT rounds?

DU is the cheapest of all alternatives. Nothing short of plain steel is cheaper than DU.

DU is useless in HEAT rounds due to different penetration nature there.


HEAT rounds have been proven to be very effective .. instead of DU, why not just use HEAT? (just a question!)

1. HEAT rounds have much lower muzzle velocity, negatively affecting long-range shots.

2. HEAT rounds are much less effective against modern armor, frontally.

3. However, against about all enemies any modern army fighting right now. (Iraq, Afganistan, Chechnya, etc) - DU rounds (and ammo) are not needed. Tungsten (or others) alloys will do just as good.

I'm sure i read somewhere on this site that one DU destroyed tank takes a huge amount of money to clean up.

I'm a student of economics and i'll thus take an economist's tone.

The marginal private cost (to the army, in effect) is far less than the marginal social cost (to everybody). The cost of cleaning up that destroyed by DU tank is far more than the cost of producing and firing that one DU round. Surely, any side will be willing to realise that the harm done is greater than the benefit gained?

I guess the question i'm asking is, how many tanks and tank crews are worth the huge cost of cleanup, associated environmental hazards and social concerns that arise (eg treating those with cancer). OPFDS has suggested that many alternatives are around the corner. Doesn't it thus make sense to use weaker ammunition in the main battlegrounds where DU rounds were used, in Iraq and Afghanistan (where there is almost no armoured enemy component)?

Did you noticed, by any chance, what USA used DU rounds NOT in home country? Contrary, in ENEMY country? May be, it is even in USA interests to pollute enemy country some more (or, at least, USA dont care?)

Health risk is of course there, but i'm not sure it is that great if soldiers did not come close to AFV's being hit by DU.

[Chrom]

The hazardous aspect of DU is that it is a heavy metal, which our bodies can not metabolize. Same sort of health affects seen from lead, chromium arsenic and other heavy metals exposures. DU dust, oxides etc points of entry are inhalation, consumption, and contact. DU Sabot rounds are vaporized on contact so you get DU dust, hexavalents, oxides and associated contamination in and around the points of impact. The dust and vapors can be further distributed by wind and so forth. Most of you can go to your local police stations indoor firearms range and be exposed to equally harmful doses of lead. 99% of them are grossly contaminated.
Yes, most health risk come from toxic nature of DU, but this do not make DU any less dangerous for health.

DU munitions are not limited to US sabot rounds either. China, Russia, and numerous other countries utilize DU munitions. In addition, just about anything 20mm on up is using DU in their AP rounds, land sea and air systems included. I could be wrong but I believe the operational use of DU was started by the A-10 program.
While it is true what many countries produce DU-sabot rounds, but ONLY USA actually use them in "peace keeping" operation.

This is barbaric and unacceptable.

Using it in A-10 ammo provide even greater toxic pollution than DU sabot, due to obvious much more higher rate of fire.

Now it would be great if the entire world would agree to ban DU but I personally think it would be lip service to agree to do so, and a disservice to our war fighters to take away anything that gives them an advantage or worse, disadvantages them.

Ban DU from using outside war for survival, just like nuclear weapon, chemical weapon, etc.

[OPSSG]

Did you noticed, by any chance, what USA used DU rounds NOT in home country? Contrary, in ENEMY country? May be, it is even in USA interests to pollute enemy country some more (or, at least, USA dont care?)

Health risk is of course there, but i'm not sure it is that great if soldiers did not come close to AFV's being hit by DU.

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? :D

While it is true what many countries produce DU-sabot rounds, but ONLY USA actually use them in "peace keeping" operation.

This is barbaric and unacceptable.

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)?

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

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 (http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1051546.html) 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. :)

[Gremlin29]

While it is true what many countries produce DU-sabot rounds, but ONLY USA actually use them in "peace keeping" operation.

This is barbaric and unacceptable.

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. :rolleyes:

[Misguided Fool]

Misguided Fool and backlash92, I hope you can read up on the differences between the types of ammo and the different type of targets they are used for before posting. I am impatient with some of the posts of this thread, as the quality of the discussion has remained at a consistently low level. On occasion, when someone raises the bar of the discussion, it seems to be brought down 3 notches immediately. Please do a google search and spend at least 5mins reading before posting, as the information is out there.



Please read up on some basics on 120mm ammo (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/120.htm) before even dealing with tank killing 30mm DU ammo used in the A-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger) aircraft:

(i) Sabot rounds or kinetic energy penetrators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator) use sheer momentum to penetrate the thickest armor found in other MBTs. IIRC, the M829A1 is a common anti-tank weapon used by the Abrams tanks during Desert Storm. This type of round usually uses a DU penetrator. Please note that a tungsten penetrator is also available for export sale (its just that the DU penetrator is more effective). This type of ammo sometimes nicknamed the "Silver Bullet", as it is designed to penetrate the armour in other MBTs. If I am not wrong the current sabot round used is the M829A3 (and there are other professionals who will correct me if I am wrong) which was introduced in 2003. While sabot rounds have great penetration, they don’t do a lot of damage outside the immediate area of impact. Sabots rounds are also of little use in urban combat. In general, tank crews do not use sabot rounds against infantry/insurgents.

(ii) HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti Tank and HEAT rounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_anti-tank) are 'multipurpose' rounds that use a 'shaped charge' in them (kindly note that there are also other types of HE rounds). In fact, the US also uses HEAT-Multi Purpose-Tracer rounds. HEAT rounds are used for a different purpose from sabot rounds. Misguided Fool, please find out and read what they are for. If you notice, pictures of Strykers tend to show that they have slats (or grills) mounted on them. These slats are a low cost way to defeat infantry/insurgent fired anti-tank weapons, which usually have HEAT warheads.

For Leopard 2 tank users with the L44 barrel, the DM63 KE Cartridge (Rheinmetall) (http://defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm) is one of the many advanced sabot rounds with tungsten penetrators around. The DM63 round has a modified propulsion-based Temperature Independent Propulsion System (TIPS). The new type uses 8.45 kg of pure bulk powder to achieve nearly the same muzzle velocity of the DM53 (1,650 m./sec on L44 barrel). The propellant modifications aimed at improving the accuracy through a wide operational temperatures (-46 +63C) ensuring safe operation extreme climate zones, and minimizing the erosion of the barrel.

I already knew about both Sabot and Heat rounds, but thanks for assuming that i didn't :rolleyes:. Thanks for also saying that my discussion was so pointless that i brought it down three notches. Wonderfully friendly :D.

What about STAFF rounds (the ones that guide themselves up and down onto the weakest armour at the top)? A suitable alternative, surely!

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)?

Which the US funded and provided equipment to :rolleyes:.

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 :).

Just a point: no major power using DU ammunition is fighting a war at the moment that involves a significant armoured component, and sabot ammo is meant to get rid of tanks. 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. In gulf war two, Saddam offered almost no conventional resistance.

Also, about A10 ammo, i've read that the 30mm fires the fastest conventional round or something similar; is that because of DU characteristics in some way?:confused:

[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? :D
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 (http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1051546.html) 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. :rolleyes:

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 :confused:

[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. :rolleyes:


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. :D

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.[/QUOTE]

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. :rolleyes:

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. :rolleyes:


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]

[QUOTE=OPSSG;171457]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.[/QUOTOk.

OK ill post links with info, thank yoyu 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? :p:

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.

[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) (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=649&page=37) 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. :D

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. :o 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. :D

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 ..? :o

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 :mad:).

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

Maybe i made a mistake trusting wikipedia :rolleyes::

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/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Mark_149_Mod_2_20mm_ammunition.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)? :confused:

[Gremlin29]

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ammunition.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Mark_149_Mod_2_20mm_ammunition.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)? :confused:


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 :rolleyes::

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 :rolleyes:.

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 :onfloorl:.

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.

:onfloorl:

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]

:onfloorl:

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 (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=171768#post171768) 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.

[malayphil]

Isn't tungsten also toxic?

:nutkick Tungsten is not uranium in war combatants die ! The casualties will not say " is this a cluster bomb? "

[Feanor]

Malayphil you are making very little sense. Please try to make posts that are understandable to others.

[malayphil]

Malayphil you are making very little sense. Please try to make posts that are understandable to others.

I meant that wars are meant to kill people.
Wars are part of this world,all weapons no matter if
it's depleted uranium and cluster bombs there is no difference
weapons,bullets,bombs are made to kill people as " humanely as possible "

[Wraith]

And is that not the whole point behind this argument, how humane are DU rounds, considering the effects they have years after combat.

I don't really know anything about DU, so I'll sit in and listen haha.

[eckherl]

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?

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.

[eckherl]

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) :)

No DU projectiles were used in the Georgian conflict nor would there of been a need for them.

[eckherl]

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



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.

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.

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.

[eckherl]

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

Only if the vehicle has been penetrated.

[Feanor]

No DU projectiles were used in the Georgian conflict nor would there of been a need for them.

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)

[Wraith]

in which case it will be repaired until deemed fit for safe use again. possibly sent beck to America and totally rebuilt if the damage is enough. then again, if the tanks been penetrated, chances are the crews dead or wounded anyway.

[Driller]

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

[Wraith]

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 :))

[TonyRyan]

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.

[Gremlin29]

Are there other munitions out there that are as effective and around the same price as DU ammo?

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.

What sort of effect's could is possibly have on the environment if it's shot at a tank/other armor?

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.

[eckherl]

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)

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.

[eckherl]

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

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.

[eckherl]

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.

I would not place much stock in this report, that is my personal opinion on it.

[wittmanace]

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?q=depleted+uranium+documentary&emb=0&aq=f#q=depleted+uranium+documentary+ard+tv&emb=0

[eckherl]

Good post Wittmanace, I think these photos will show some of the U.S concerns also.

[Feanor]

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.

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.