http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentW...earchPaper.htm


PRO’S AND CON’S OF DU AMMUNITION:

When first analyzing the ethical dilemmas of DU ammo, a statement of the most relevant facts, such as the pros and cons, are necessary. For example, there are crucial benefits of DU ammo. It is a highly effective armor-piercing device. The purpose of ammunition is to take out enemy targets efficiently by inflicting as much damage as you can to the enemy. DU is very effective and is a very lethal and efficient killing device. It doesn’t just damage an enemy tank, it pulverizes it and easily annihilates the crew as well! There are alternative forms of advanced ammo but DU fares the best of them all! Alternative forms of ammunition are around 20% less effective than DU and generally more expensive (such as using Tungsten kinetic penetrators). 1,10 Alternative tank rounds do not always penetrate armor as effectively as DU. Most non-DU rounds tend to “mushroom” (which is how the round looks after contact with enemy armor) as they hit their targets. However, as DU contacts enemy armor, it get extremely hot and “self-sharpens” as it enters the armor, just like a hot knife through butter.10,11 The bottom line is that DU is simply too good for any military not to use in the battlefield! Another crucial benefit of DU is that it increases the effectiveness of military weapons at even greater distances, oftentimes putting your enemy at a huge disadvantage. Another benefit DU proved during the Gulf War was using DU as tank armor. 645 out of 2058 US tanks used in the Gulf were fitted with DU armor.14f Iraqi tank rounds directly struck US tanks but there was no puncture of the DU armor! Hence DU used as ammunition and armor are important ways of protecting our soldiers in combat. Unfortunately, another significant characteristic of DU was also discovered during the Gulf War, that DU ammo can easily puncture DU armor (as was found out by US tanks hit by friendly fire)! 14f A final benefit of DU ammunition is that by using DU rounds in huge military campaigns, one can get rid of tons of nuclear waste. A lot of waste dumped all over Kosovo and Iraq. This is basically dumping nuclear waste through the use of deadly weapons.11

[quote] Seacadet> It's APFSDS-T not APDS-FS.[\quote]

RE- Jack> The common term for family of those type rounds are APDS-FS. The term you have given is the offical US Army designation (ie usually proceeded by alphabetical and number name)

Jack> Finally, while the APDS-FS round for the M1A1 Abrams may not have a fragmenting effect on the end of its "arrow" other nations and US manufactures (ie Israel) developed them for their tungsten based APDS-FS rounds. Reason being against older tanks and with side shots they had over penetration and they wanted more effect behind the armor similar to the older solid AP rounds that has a small burst charge in the tail.


SeaCadet> Its a flechette("Arrow"). The US Has a few tungsten penetrator rounds i.e. HEAT. The reason tungsten is use s because it one of the softest metas yet one of the hardest to melt. HEAT rounds use a shaped charge with a tungsten penetrator because the charge explodes and "burns" through the armor.

RE-Jack> You are joking? Seriously you have to be joking????????


Jack E. Hammond

[quote="jackehammond"]

Seacadet> It's APFSDS-T not APDS-FS.[\quote]

RE- Jack> The common term for family of those type rounds are APDS-FS. The term you have given is the offical US Army designation (ie usually proceeded by alphabetical and number name)

RE-Jack> You are joking? Seriously you have to be joking????????


Jack E. Hammond

I have never heard anyone refer to a APFSDS-T as a APDS-FS.

Dear Missileer,

I know this is like trying to sweep the waves back of an incoming tide, but that students paper was totally bogus. The last sentence especially. DU is not dangerously radioactive and is easily disposed of. Also there is a big civilian use for it as counter weights and ballasts on aircraft, etc sealed in plastic.

Jack E. Hammond

Yes Jack, and in comes the first wave. I don't claim to be an expert on DU so I research, just as I imagine you and our young friend has. I read all of the posts and, ya know, I've pretty much verified with online references what BOTH of you say is correct. You mentioned in an earlier post how you didn't want to get into a pi$$ing contest, yet you have done just that. And that's fine, although kinda silly but, I have seen no justification for throwing insulting and belittling remarks toward our young friend. Perhaps what could be done is to provide links to substantiate the information being provided and leave it at that. Maybe we should also be reminded that this is supposed to be talk about the worth of DU bullets and not about the symantics of SABOT rounds.....

With that, I still think DU would be a waste in shoulder fired weapons. After all, the light arms are still and will always be intended for anti-personnel purposes where it's alot better to tumble and make a mess rather than punch a neat little hole.

Can we at least agree that the threat of DU munitions on the battlefield has changed the way we train and inspect battle damage? I remember receiving briefings and training on reacting to possible DU contamination prior to my last few deployments.

"Why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends?" - War

I could see using DU in the phalanx where the spent rounds would be at bottom of an ocean. Still, the gunners on the ship would have gases and microscopic fragments from hot barrels to worry about.

First off I totally agree with Jack on the DU not being dangerous. Second DU has been tested by the EPA and Natick US Army Research and has been found to be at lower levels of that during peace time usage.

(was just on epa.gov and learn that smoke detectors contain radiation.)

DU would be a total waste for anti-infantry use, DU is for AP use not anti-infantry.

(My whole point on the Sabot (APFSDS) was that the 120mm rounds have a DU penetrator.)

DU in other countries is what I am more concerned with. Our standard for our munitions are one thing, but other countries generally do not go by US standards for acceptable levels of radiation.