June 10th, 2013
| || |
Originally Posted by CB90
Usually when we don't do the "smart" or "cheap" option, there are environmental/OSHA issues. With depleted uranium's reputation/history, that's even more likely.
How do you think, what is the main reason for using DU projectiles instead of tungsten carbide or other tungsten alloys, cost and availability or their effectiveness? [Mod edit: Please note that cost alone is not a driver of military procurement decisions (and its is a bit of an urban legend/over-simplification, perpetuated by people who don't understand the weapons procurement decision making process). The M1028 is designed for anti-personnel work to meet specific requirements (see link to ppt) and it can kill enemy personnel behind structures or in soft skinned vehicles. In fact, this tank round can kill light armour; and there is little or no additional benefit of using DU projectiles in place of existing tungsten projectiles (i.e. not a requirement in developing this tank round).
While we appreciate participation, this single issue tank ammo thread is closed; it is a dead-end, as there is NO attempt to research this topic being discussed. Please read other threads in the forum (eg. see this thread on Ratio of armour to infantry), to get a sense of maturity, and quality of participation by other members, in particular, have a look at the Hall of Shame. We do not expect to have to intervene further, or explain this Mod Team decision. Read more prior threads before posting, and remember to observe the Forum Rules.
If you want to increase post count, start with an introduction, here. Have fun posting but do take the time to read other threads and understand the posting culture in this forum; we are not a 'he said', 'she said' competition of shouting posts - the citing of sources, debunking of misinformation from sources, and source challenges is to be expected; unless you have demonstrated subject matter expertise. Many thanks for your attention.]
Last edited by OPSSG; June 11th, 2013 at 01:35 AM.