 |
| |
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
GP, all very well and good, but you didn't say anything. For instance, do you think that conventional ammo would have faced much difficulty in disabling Iraqi armor quickly and efficiently. I doubt it. This is the disproportionate use of a weapon with potentially dangerous side-effects, no one can say for sure what the side-effects are because no one has taken the time to seriously study the subject.
I wouldn't have any particular problems with its use if American tanks were facing up against weapons systems that offered them a significant challenge where you might be able to say use of DU will save x amount of soldiers but I do not think thats the case here. If you do please take the time to explain how. |
quote:
The following story happened to an M1 Abrams main battle tank in General Barry McCaffrey's 24th Mechanized Infantry Division during the Gulf War.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was raining heavily, and one M1 managed to get stuck in a mud hole and could not be extracted. With the rest of their unit moving on, the crew of the stuck tank waited for a recovery vehicle to pull them out.
Suddenly, as they were waiting, three Iraqi T-72 tanks came over a hill and charged the mud-bogged tank. One T-72 fired a high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round that hit the frontal turret armor of the M1, but did no damage. At this point, the crew of the M1, though still stuck, fired a 120mm armor-piercing round at the attacking tank. The round penetrated the T-72s turret, blowing it off into the air. By this time, the second T-72 also fired a HEAT round at the M1. That also hit the front of the turret, and did no damage. The M1 immediately dispatched this T-72 with another 120mm round. After that the third and now last T-72 fired a 125mm armor-piercing round at the M1 from a range of 400 meters. This only grooved the front armor plate. Seeing that continued action did not have much of a future, the crew of the last T-72 decided to run for cover. Spying a nearby sand berm, the Iraqis darted behind it, thinking they would be safe their. Back in the M1, the crew saw through their Thermal Imaging Sight the hot plume of the T-72's engine exhaust spewing up from behind the berm. Aiming carefully the M1's crew fired a third 120mm round through the berm, into the tank, destroying it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above story copied from "Armored Cav - A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment" by Tom Clancy. Visit the Tom Clancy home page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhaleNotes on the above story
American Tank Armor
The American Abrams tank was able to survive due to the advanced and classified nature of the armor on the tank. The Abrams tank contains a reactive armor (which means that parts of it may explode back at the shell as it explodes against the armor) and also contains depleted uranium. Other countries use reactive armor, the T-72 tanks had it, but they don't have the depleted uranium. We are the only country using that technology. Depleted uranium is very very hard (and very very toxic).
HEAT Rounds
Note that the M1 tank was directly hit by two HEAT (High Explosive - Anti Tank) rounds from the Iraqi tanks. The HEAT rounds are shaped charge explosive shells designed to defeat heavy tank armor. When these HEAT rounds contact another object they explode throwing out a compressed jet of material at up to 29,500 feet per second (Mach 25!) in a small concentrated area. Note that the American tank survived two direct hits of this type with no damage. Don't try this at home.
SABOT Rounds
The other type of round that hit the American tank was referred to as an armor-piercing round. These are sometimes referred to as SABOT rounds or Long-Rod Penetrators. They are basically long thin rods, up to 2 feet long and weighing about 10 lbs. This "dart" is fin stabilized to ensure that it flies straight. The hardness of these darts is critical to their success. These rounds work using only kinetic energy and do not explode on impact. Their damage potential comes from their hitting a very small area (smaller than the HEAT rounds) with tremendous force. They can fly at up to Mach 4. The last T-72 tank in the above story fired this style round (the third shot) which only creased the frontal tank armor! Note that only the armor on the front of an Abrams tank could take any one of the three rounds fired at the American tank. A shot from another angle would have certainly killed the American tank.
American SABOT Rounds
The American tank in the story always fired SABOT rounds, but they killed their targets. These are the shots of choice by the American tankers when shooting other tanks. American SABOT rounds are thinner (making them more effective because they strike less of the enemy armor's surface area) and contain a "dart" partially made up of depleted uranium (DU), which makes them a very effective kinetic energy weapon. These darts are so hard one story from the Gulf War tells of a SABOT round going completely through an Iraqi tank and into a second tank, killing them both. The depleted uranium creates a different effect than other SABOT rounds because the American DU rod also tends to begin to burn as it drives through the enemy tank armor. Therefore when it penetrates the armor, part of it comes out as bits of high energy burning material. Because the Russian tank types (like the T-72 in the story) carry live ammunition inside the tank turrets, it makes for a big explosion. Also because the American SABOT rounds contain depleted uranium, they kind of make a toxic mess of the enemy tank.
Six for Six
One last point to consider is that in the above tank battle only six shots were fired and all six were direct hits! Considering the excitement of the crews and the movements of the Iraqi tanks, this really highlights the accuracy and lethality of today's targeting systems. Even the Iraqi T-72 tanks never missed.
|
Note that the Abrams uses DU both offensively and defensively.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
GP, all very well and good, but you didn't say anything. For instance, do you think that conventional ammo would have faced much difficulty in disabling Iraqi armor quickly and efficiently. I doubt it. This is the disproportionate use of a weapon with potentially dangerous side-effects, no one can say for sure what the side-effects are because no one has taken the time to seriously study the subject.
I wouldn't have any particular problems with its use if American tanks were facing up against weapons systems that offered them a significant challenge where you might be able to say use of DU will save x amount of soldiers but I do not think thats the case here. If you do please take the time to explain how. |
but we know a lot about radiation (that the DU produces)
and we know a lot about radiations effects on biological matter (and I am sure we are still testing this)
you know that going to a dentist causes you more harm from radiation than that from sleeping next to a DU cannister everynigfht for a year?
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Thats just goofy Tuberski, we put our forces into any number of operational constraints in any war, to protect civilians, to follow international conventions, to limit the amount of destruction done to the infrastructure of whatever country we're fighting in and to protect our own troops health.
Unless someone has some information demonstrating that conventional rounds would not be able to effectively penetrate the armor of a weapons system we were up against I can't be convinced DU should have been used in GW 2 or wherever else it was used.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Sorry Monk, the thread moved a little too quickly to keep up with. Your quote is very cool but the evidence is circumstantial. It mentions that the T-72s had reflective armor but no DU, that their rounds were not DU but the american's were, making it seem as if DU was the deciding factor of the engagement. What about the fact that the M-1A1 is a next generation tank. That the nature of the M-1A1's reflective armor is certainly more advanced then that of the T-72's even without DU.
I also think its possible to concede that using DU on a defensive basis is significantly safer then offensive. The most significant reason being that it seems by design much of the DU in rounds vaporizes, creating as your article states, 'a toxic mess'.
Last edited by gsmoove23 on 30-04-2003 at 04:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
we use antifreeze don't we??
that is toxic
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Highly toxic yes, also radioactive when ingested. GP, if I made pronouncements out of ignorance that is also a criticism of DU because frankly we don't know what the full effects of this material are. Instead of doing intensive study on this you have the Rand Corp the Army and other organizations white washing the subject claiming that there are few studies to suggest any significant harmful effects or connection to Gulf syndrome why? Because there were few studies to begin with. Its not in their interests. I would simply prefer we do all this stuff beforehand instead of the traditional agent orange way of handling things.
Last edited by gsmoove23 on 30-04-2003 at 20:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
GP, run rings however you like, you're attacking me instead of actually argueing anything. I started this thread so people could say what their opinions on DU are, not their opinions on my intelligence.
Since I've started this thread I have sifted through a number of links, read a good deal about the matter and I haven't found anything to deny that large amounts of DU munitions being discharged in an area, through anti-tank shell, large caliber machine guns and such can be detrimental to the environment both toxically and radioactively. I know that the DU radiation can be absorbed by soft tissue but can be repelled by paper or even the layer of dead skin sells on your skin.
The soft tissue thing is more of a problem because when these weapons hit targets much of the DU is vaporized and dispersed throughout the immediate environment where it can enter the food chain or just go straight into human mouths and lungs. The fact is that nobody has adequate information on what the possible long-term effects of this exposure is.
So please, if you can run rings do so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Basically depleted uranium is
a dangerous for the human health material that is used in missiles to make them hard enough to penetrate tanks.
And of course it causes terratogenesis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
GP, run rings however you like, you're attacking me instead of actually argueing anything. I started this thread so people could say what their opinions on DU are, not their opinions on my intelligence.
Since I've started this thread I have sifted through a number of links, read a good deal about the matter and I haven't found anything to deny that large amounts of DU munitions being discharged in an area, through anti-tank shell, large caliber machine guns and such can be detrimental to the environment both toxically and radioactively. I know that the DU radiation can be absorbed by soft tissue but can be repelled by paper or even the layer of dead skin sells on your skin.
The soft tissue thing is more of a problem because when these weapons hit targets much of the DU is vaporized and dispersed throughout the immediate environment where it can enter the food chain or just go straight into human mouths and lungs. The fact is that nobody has adequate information on what the possible long-term effects of this exposure is.
So please, if you can run rings do so. |
If you become educated, I have less of a problem with it. I agree that you are learning a little bit more. My criticism was from when you said "I don't know much about this, but I can tell it is bad." If you want to make your argument even better, consider adding:
1. Numbers (exposure levels).
2. Comparison to other toxicities on the battlefield. Maybe just like smoke?
3. Comparison of combat efficacy. If I'm a soldier with a very slight chance of dying from a bit of DU on the battlefield but a great chance of dying if I don't kill that other tank, I'm not too worried about chemical crap. Just help me kill that tank so he doesn't kill me.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2003 03:53
), when inhaled and ingested the effects can be extremely toxic and you will be subject to significantly higher amounts of radiation. Its already been pointed out here that most of the DU in these rounds will be dispersed into microscopic pieces into the environment.
ACK!
|