DU - Health Risk?

Tank ammo is not a solid DU round but a part of an alloy. I can't discuss the composition but the figures discussed here are not correct either, neither is the KE equation.

DU historicly has been cheaper, especially in the earily days when no one knew what to with it. Since its demand has gone up so has its price.

If DU was less effective than any other metal then why are so many countries and manufactures using it?

DU is used as a armor additive on a couple of vehicles. I've spent many nights sleeping on it as well as several thousand others. There hasn't been one documented complaint, other than freezing our collective asses off, from those of us that are doing it.

DU has proven safe by a number of agencies unless you are occupiyng a T-72. It does have some hazards in its use. I would suggest not becoming a target for fear of your tanks injesting DU. Hopefully someone will come up with a method to resolve things so tanks aren't deployed. It'll never happen so I want the best ammo leaving my muzzle.

Denmark has been a damn good allie. However, the possibility of their armor forces being deployed in a tank fight is very remote. Denmark chose to not manufacture DU is based on the green parties imposed fears on the population and the unlikelyhood Danish tankers ever firing a round in anger. Here is a bit of info you didn't know. Danish tanks are capable of firing the DU rounds. They have the ballistic data on the tanks at this very moment to do it. Since the majority of NATOs ammo is manufactured in America and Germany (with licensing to other countries), what do you think is the probably of Danish tankers using DU in combat? It would be very high.

 

Firstly, it is Depleted Uranium. If it was that toxic, they would not build the front end of their tanks out of it...
Sure, it is a little radioactive, but then so are brazil nuts.

Secondly, how much DU do you think is in the average tank shell? Not much, is the answer. It would take a full armoured Division firing all their AP rounds to even start to discard enough DU to make it worthwhile from a 'dumping' point of view. And I would guess that more DU ammo has been fired on training ranges within the USA than on active duty outside the USA.

As to being a cheap method of dumping - how much time and effort do you think is required to manufacture 1 shell? multiply that by quite a lot. The outcome is that it would be cheaper to simply do what other countries do with their waste, which is dig a big hole and throw it all in.

 

Jens' KE equation is fine in and of itself, it's his assumptions that are way off. The alloying of the penetrators means that the weight by volume is about the same as I understand it. And since the kinetic energy of the round is developed by the gun if the DU round was lighter the gun would accelerate it to a higher velocity (within limits).

Although I see Grieg has beaten me to it, Yes a hole made by a DU penetrator in this case is special. It's Deeper. Giving it a better chance of making it all the way through. At current velocities the material properties of DU alloy mean it's better at forcing a hole through armour. In the future if higher velocities are obtained the material properties of the penetrator may become less important than it's density and tungsten may become the weapon of choice.

The only reason tungsten was used in WWII and later, as opposed to uranium (depleted, natural or otherwise) was because any uranium supplies were usually diverted to bomb projects. And apparently uranium isn't all that easy a material to work with, mind you neither is tungsten but as that was being used for machine tools they had a better idea about it.

 

the speed of the shot have nothing to do with the material its made of, it have all to do with how much gun powder you use as populsion, a heavier round just need more populsion

AP round use kinetic energy, des harder surface you need to penetate des more kinetic energy you need, therefor for its best to use a type of material that have a high speed and a heavy weigth, you remember:
E = ½*m*v^2

if you use a lighter material you need a higher speed to penetrat the surface, tungsten have a higher density then uranium, meaning the atoms in tungsten sit close, therefor if you have two object of the same size, one made of tungsten and the other made of uranium, the object made of tungsten is heavier

the conclusion is then if you have a AP rod made of tungsten and a AP rod made of uranium and they are the same size and move with the same speed on impact, the tungsten rod have more kinetic energy to penetrat the surface with the the rod made of uranium, its simple physic and you cant change the law of physic to make them fit your own beliefs

the only reason that DU ammo seem to be better then tungsten ammo is because the DU round high with a higher speed then tungsten, something that is simple to change, more gun powder in tungsten rounds, which the germans have also made, therefor there is no long any good arguement that DU rounds should be better then tungsten
http://www.defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm

as you can see the projectile weighe is 10kg and the muzzel velocity is 1,555 m/s which give a kinetic energy of:
E =½*10*1,555^2 = 12090125 joules when leaving the barrel

the kinetic energy for this one is (in a L/55 barrel):
E = ½*8,35*1,750^2 = 12785937,5 joules when leaving the barrel (this calculation is not completly accurate since they are given the weigh of the projectil with sabot)
this two results do not convince me that DU is better then tungsten, the numbers speak for them self
btw. danish tankers will not use DU ammo, as you can see we are buying tungsten ammo from Germany.

 

the kinetic energy for this one is (in a L/55 barrel):
E = ½*8,35*1,750^2 = 12785937,5 joules when leaving the barrel (this calculation is not completly accurate since they are given the weigh of the projectil with sabot)
this two results do not convince me that DU is better then tungsten, the numbers speak for them self
btw. danish tankers will not use DU ammo, as you can see we are buying tungsten ammo from Germany.[/quote]

lol..I see you didn't bother to Google "depleted uranium, self sharpening" or you would better information of the mechanics of penetration.
There is more to it than high school level physics calculations but as they say...you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink

 

in lack of arguements you are attacking the person and not the arguements made, how low can someone get?
provide your own data and calculasion on it and I have respect for your arguementation, but attacking the person making them is way to low therefor I will find it pointless to continue this arguementation if you keep in the same track of attacking the person and not the arguementation
prove me wrong instead of compare people with a horse, but you have not provide any data you self

 

Ok, stepping in now before this gets ugly.

Firstly, the saying "you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink" is an old adage which means that you can give a person an opportunity to do something, but you can't force them to do it. It is not in any way comparing people to horses. Neither is it particularly attacking the person. It is more a lament that information given seems to be being ignored.


Secondly, this is the broad overview of the debate. Let's keep on track shall we?

On the one hand we have Jens stating that tungsten would make better ammunition because it is denser - backed up with mathematical proof/reasoning.

On the other hand we have Grieg (and others) stating that DU would make better ammunition because of the 'self-sharpening effect' - no actual soruce given, but a suggestion on how to get hold of one easily. Grieg, please find us a link.

 

remember this is an international forum, so be careful on what saying you are using since they can be misunderstood by none english speaking people
and instead of come up with suggestions on where to find information then its much better to provide links to places with informations, then you are sure that people is getting the same information that you are referring to

 

It is true that sayings like that can be misunderstood due to cultural differences (ie: never heard it before) which is why I stepped in and explained it.

And requested that everybody cool down a touch

 

I find his "lol" more offensing against me then the saying, its not polit to laughing of other people in an arguementation

 

*sigh*


here ya go:

link where that quote came from:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm

Go to the bottom of the page for graphic demonstrations of DU versus tungsten.

Do you need more? I can find it but I dislike "spoon feeding" that which is easily available to anyone who looks for it :roll: .

 

Not sure if I can add anything to this discussion... but that won't stop me from trying.

Lets look at this from a different angle. I believe Jens/sinissas' arguement/rebuttal is based on the fact they believe depleted-uranium ammunition (30mm GAU as used in the A-10 and 120mm Abrams main-gun rounds) constitute a health hazard to both people and the enviornment. That is, in addition to the obvious health-hazard of being targeted by either weapons-system.

My understanding is that lead--as used in bullets--is also a "heavy" metal and has been used on the battlefield for centuries. Here in the USA, waterfowl hunters have been mandated to switch to "non-toxic" shotgun-shells due to the toxicity of lead if ingested by waterfowl and raptors.

Point is, I don't hear a clamor that demands the outlawing of lead bullets by the worlds' militaries... and it is proven to be toxic, absorbed by the body, passed-up the food-chain--consumption of fish--and not something you want in the soil or public water-supplies. All lead-additives in fuels and paints have been outlawed here in the USA for quite some time.

Some are alarmed by the very use of uranium due to the term "radioactive" yet seem to overlook the usage of the word "depleted" as in depleted-uranium. Relatively low exposure to radioactive elements-- through x-rays at your dentist or local hospital--are of little concern as it's the cumulative effects over a lifetime that has increased health risks.

I'll wager theres much more expended lead (bullets, pellets) laying around the feet of European or US citizens than any measurable amounts of DU. Birth defects are known to occur, and toxic poisioning from lead is well-documented. We still use it in ammunition. (American small-game hunters, target and silouette shooters, trap and sporting-clays.) This outrage over the use of DU seems misplaced, and out of realistic proportion to the potential health-threats from what I've seen posted so far.

An "Americanism" or comparable analogy might be:
"Making a mountain out of a mole-hill."

Frankly, I'm more concerned with an asteroid killing our planet... than the toxicity and radiation generated from the "dust" of depleted uranium rounds... and it's potential risks to the general population.

batter UP!

Tim

 

I have a few more things to ask for:

1) can a AP rod made by tungsten destroy any tanks that we are likely to meet on the battlefield today (T-55, T-72, T-80 and similar tanks)? (this is a simple yes or no question, dont make it into a "it depence on armor thickness of the add-on armor used" since then you can always put so much armor on a tank so it can stop any round fired at it, but that will result in that it would be hard to move)

2) and in the war against terror are you expecting to meet many tanks?

1) yes it can, therefor I see no reason to use ammo which will result in widely debate over health and risk of getting sick since this only create more hate toward those who is using it, and its political unwise to make more enemies then you already have, DU ammo dont destroy a tank more then tungsten ammo, destroyed is destroyed, its like you dont die more if you get killed from 10 shots instead of 8 shots

2) no, talibans and the terrorists in Iraq (or what ever you call them depending on which side you are on) dont drive around in tanks and therefor I still cant see a need to use uranium which couse debate and hate toward the users of it and its very unwise to create even more hate in the middleeast toward the westen world

use of uranium in ammo is not only a health question, which can be debated for a very long time to come, it very much also a political question and if you make more enemies because of the debate and questions over the health issues then its also very military unwise to use it, we all know who will get the first brod of the attacks against westen interesst in Iraq and Afghanistan, the soldiers

and I still hold on that a tungsten rod have more kinetic energy then a uranium rod of the same size and moving with the same speed

 

I'm shocked. After posting that quote and link I truly expected you to come back with " I'm sorry. I was wrong and I stand corrected ".

I will do it for you.

Grieg,
I'm sorry. I was wrong, you were correct. I stand corrected.
Jens Knudsen

 

this is the 2. time you are offensing toward me, I will now ask the admins of this forum to take action against it, it can not be right that we cant have a discussion with out that you are starting to act childish toward me, this is way to low and I have lost all respect for you
you should try to keep this in a good tone toward your fellow humans and respect others and their opinions and try to answer if they ask some questions, but yo have not and therefor the respect I had for you is gone

 

Actually, I didn't insult you the last time you accused me of it, as was pointed out to you by Ricky. You simply misunderstood.
Now you are angry about an obviously joking post, complete with smiley faces?
Get over it and try and regain some sense of humor. Life is too short to take yourself so seriously.

That should give some others a laugh who have debated with me in the past

 

and as also pointed out, this is an international forum with many people from different cultures so you should be careful of what you are saying and how you are saying it since the risk for misunderstanding is high when there is none english speaking people present, dont you have respect for people that dont speak english as their main language?
and if you have then please start showing it by stop acting the way you do toward me and untill you start to show some respect toward me and my points of view I have little respect left for you.
how hard can it be to keep the dicussion in a good tone with respect for each other and each other's point of view?

 

Damn you guys got thin skin!

Danes speak great english and Jen is no different. Your english is fine and could be considered better than in certian parts of America. There hasn't been one "culturally targeted" comment from anybody so get off the politically correct wave.

Back on target.....

Believe it or not the muzzle velocity does have a direct relationship to the material being used. The M256A1/L55 cannon and breech can withstand a good deal more pressure. We haven't pushed the envelope for a number of reasons but one of them is due to the affect the increased velocity has on the penetrator. Take a look at the MV of all the 120mm ammo being produced. You'll notice that the American ammo actually slowed down a little bit and is programed to increase slightly in the near future. Our ammunition's effects are well documented and the slower ammo seems to have done very well.

The US also manufactures Tungsten rounds and may even start using them in the future. However, Danish tankers will use what ever ammo arrives just like everybody else if they were to go to war. Tungsten carbide does have good penetration values and could potentially still be effective in the future. However, one of the main concerns in ammo production is costs.

Don't think that armed forces are only going to fight conflicts like the "war on terror". The US still prepares for heavy maneuver fights as well as counter insurgency, so do Danes. There is a strong belief we will have to fight Iran in the not to distant future. So the taliban comparison is weak and lacks foresight.

 

You realise that the composition of the shot, and therefore the material it's made of, is very much linked to how fast you can push it out of a gun, and is the whole principle behind APCR/APSD/APFSDS.

There is a very real limit on how much propellant you can physically fit into the chamber of the gun, and a limit on how much pressure the gun can withstand. Adding more propellant is not always the answer.

Battle of the formulas is it? Try F=M*A, the heavier the shot is the higher the force (read pressure in this case) required to accelerate it to begin with. Higher pressure and temperature results in increased stresses on the breach and higher erosion in the barrel, leading to reduced life for the gun. A perfect example of which is the Paris gun.

Pure Tungsten. Pure Uranium. Neither is used to make penetrators.

If weight and density is more important to you why doesn't Denmark use full calibre Wolfram rounds?

Not my beliefs, probably hundreds of man-years spent since WWII alone figuring out the best way to punch a hole in an enemy tank. If kinetic energy is the be all and end all of defeating armour, why bother putting a pointy nose on an AP shell/shot? why bother making it out of the hardest and strongest steel available? Why not just load the gun with the correct weight of pig iron or lead, after all, it'll have the same KE.

You are absolutely right. There are no arguments that DU alloys make better penetrators than Tungsten.

Obviously except for the fact that DU alloys typically exhibit adiabatic shear while penetrating resulting in a "self sharpening" behaviour increasing penetration versus tungsten by 10% to 25% depending on who you listen to.

The only way the Germans were able to match this level of performance using tungsten was to "glue" another 11 calibres onto the gun and you say increase the propellant load, which is going to jack up the chamber pressure and reduce the gun's life.

I don't know why you are so wedded to the idea that tungsten is at least as good as DU when a quick search throws up all kinds of evidence to the contrary. Here just read the abstract. Note the phrases "equi-density" and "geometrically similar", meaning exactly the same KE.

 

Grieg,

there is a time and a place for humour, and a post responding to somebody who feels you have insulted them (even if that was not your intention) is not it.

Please do try and be a tad more sensitive.


Jens, Grieg can seem quite... abrasive in his posts. However, he is usually joking (as here), or just being a bit grumpy. When he really does get out of line we do rap his knuckles for him.