Depleted Uranium? Is it really used in missiles or even in airplanes?

[andritsos]

I just want to ask as i cant say i am interested about it. i know a proffessor that tells me that DU is as dangerous as normal U in terms of radioactvity and that is responsible for a contamination in serbia, bosnia, iraq,afghanistan and now in Lybia too( note that surely might not be the only hazard). I suppose that they use it perhaps against armour, but i can also have an idea for why using it on wings...
does anybody knows soemthing about?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I just want to ask as i cant say i am interested about it. i know a proffessor that tells me that DU is as dangerous as normal U in terms of radioactvity and that is responsible for a contamination in serbia, bosnia, iraq,afghanistan and now in Libya (corrected :DL) too( note that surely might not be the only hazard). I suppose that they use it perhaps against armour, but i can also have an idea for why using it on wings...
does anybody knows soemthing about?
I maybe wrong but in my understanding structures made of depleted uranium are used as radiation shields in medical radiology and transportation of radioactive materials. :hmmm:

What comes to military applications you are correct in that depleted uranium is being used in armour piercing projectiles. Its also used in armour plating. Thats because of its density which gives several advantages in military applications.

I don't know why depleted uranium is used in aircraft. Never heard of that before.

[the_tyrant]

I believe its used on ground attack aircraft aircraft
the DU works better against tanks

[Rockstar]

Not only does it's density make it a premier material for modern ammunition. It's now considered the 9th essential vitamin in most of todays breakfast cereals.

“Now fortified with DEPLETED URANIUM!”

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070215190013/uncyclopedia/images/1/1b/Cereal_script.jpg

[Oberon]

IIRC, Depleted Uranium is used in the PGU-14/B munition

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/pgu-14.htm

Which is primarily used as an anti-tank weapon because of its dense properties. Cuts through most armour like a hot knife through butter.
It is, also I believe, used as part of the Chobham armour on the M1A1 and M1A2 tanks, whereas we use a Tungsten alloy, it's arguable which is more effective.
It's also used as a tamper in Fission bombs.

In terms of the dangerousness of Depleted Uranium...well, that's a contentious issue, I recall the issue of Gulf War Syndrome following the first war which was partially blamed on DU.

[Stealhead]

It is dangerous short term at least that is why not only did some US Gulf War vets and their kids have problems so did Bedouins that live in the same region who make a living of off gathering scrap metals.Every legitimate Gulf War sickness case the person either was inside or very near a destroyed vehicle or had camped in a area that was later found to have had
spent DU rounds(from A-10 GAU-8s) in the ground in the same area.

When a DU round hits a tank it send debris and dust all inside and around the tank this is what is bad for you.What they did after 1991 was tell US troops not to mess with the DU rounds or mess with things that had been hit by them or build an encampment over any area suspected to have had DU rounds land.I know this because I had buddies in the USAF that where AMMO guys and the ones that joined pre 1991 had never been warned about DU rounds and of course where pissed to learn after years of handling them that they where now hazardous.I do not think they are as harmful inert it is after they are fired that they become a risk.The DOD became much more restrictive in its use after 1991 but their carelessness has given ammo to many people.

DU is an issue because it is used it anti tank munitions there is also a sabot dart round fired by MBT guns that is made of DU.It is a public relations issue they need the DU to destroy tanks but they dont want to fully admit its risks so they choose to gray area it.

DU is a term that military public relations Officers dread to hear in fact it is most times one of those "no comment" topics.

I am a supporter of a military using the weapons that it needs to perform its mission but they should have been more open about DU from the start rather than not doing so and then an issue occurring the DOD took a lax stance pre 1991 and it cost them.

DU works so well for armor penetration because it is one of the most dense elements on earth it is made form spent Uranium fuel rods.
Never heard of it use on aircraft though and not sure why one would want it on a aircraft for structural purposes.OK it is used as trim weight in some aircraft.

[CCIP]

No, the only use on aircraft would be as ammunition; since aircraft are always trying to save weight, it'd make no sense to use it even as armor. The A-10, however, has a 'tub' of armor around the cockpit made of the much lighter titanium and its only use for DU is, again, in AP ammo for its cannon.

[TLAM Strike]

No, the only use on aircraft would be as ammunition; since aircraft are always trying to save weight, it'd make no sense to use it even as armor. The A-10, however, has a 'tub' of armor around the cockpit made of the much lighter titanium and its only use for DU is, again, in AP ammo for its cannon.

Steelhead was right they were used as trim weights in many aircraft incl. commercial aircraft. But most manufactures stopped in the 1980s.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Steelhead was right they were used as trim weights in many aircraft incl. commercial aircraft. But most manufactures stopped in the 1980s.
What they use today instead of DU trim weights?

[Oberon]

Also used in a couple of racing yachts as a keel. :yep:

[Gerald]

Carbon fiber,maybe or Titanium?

[Oberon]

Well, more specifically this ship:

http://www.betty-ck145.de/cruisers/smalljpgs/pen_duick_vi_large.jpg

The keel was later replaced with a standard lead keel though.

[CCIP]

Steelhead was right they were used as trim weights in many aircraft incl. commercial aircraft. But most manufactures stopped in the 1980s.

ah, well, I should've thought of trim weights/ballast. Indeed that's a handy application for heavy stuff.

Lead isn't overly healthy either, though, but it's not really an issue if it's contained and not burning/spraying around :yep:

[Jimbuna]

It is dangerous short term at least that is why not only did some US Gulf War vets and their kids have problems so did Bedouins that live in the same region who make a living of off gathering scrap metals.Every legitimate Gulf War sickness case the person either was inside or very near a destroyed vehicle or had camped in a area that was later found to have had
spent DU rounds(from A-10 GAU-8s) in the ground in the same area.

When a DU round hits a tank it send debris and dust all inside and around the tank this is what is bad for you.What they did after 1991 was tell US troops not to mess with the DU rounds or mess with things that had been hit by them or build an encampment over any area suspected to have had DU rounds land.I know this because I had buddies in the USAF that where AMMO guys and the ones that joined pre 1991 had never been warned about DU rounds and of course where pissed to learn after years of handling them that they where now hazardous.I do not think they are as harmful inert it is after they are fired that they become a risk.The DOD became much more restrictive in its use after 1991 but their carelessness has given ammo to many people.

DU is an issue because it is used it anti tank munitions there is also a sabot dart round fired by MBT guns that is made of DU.It is a public relations issue they need the DU to destroy tanks but they dont want to fully admit its risks so they choose to gray area it.

DU is a term that military public relations Officers dread to hear in fact it is most times one of those "no comment" topics.

I am a supporter of a military using the weapons that it needs to perform its mission but they should have been more open about DU from the start rather than not doing so and then an issue occurring the DOD took a lax stance pre 1991 and it cost them.

DU works so well for armor penetration because it is one of the most dense elements on earth it is made form spent Uranium fuel rods.
Never heard of it use on aircraft though and not sure why one would want it on a aircraft for structural purposes.OK it is used as trim weight in some aircraft.

^ Good post :up:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

^ Good post :up:
Off topic. I know its possible to rate threads but is it possible to rate posts?

[Dowly]

Off topic. I know its possible to rate threads but is it possible to rate posts?

Dont think so.

[Jimbuna]

Off topic. I know its possible to rate threads but is it possible to rate posts?

Dowly is correct...just the overall thread unfortunately.

[Gerald]

But it was not entirely wrong, to do that :haha:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Pity. It would be interesting to see say monthly list of best posts.

Somehow I believe that Dowly would rank quite high... guess why. :DL

[Jimbuna]

Pity. It would be interesting to see say monthly list of best posts.

Somehow I believe that Dowly would rank quite high... guess why. :DL

I'll not answer that but rest assured I know him better than you might think I do :DL

[Dowly]

Somehow I believe that Dowly would rank quite high... guess why. :DL

My irresistible charm and mind-blowingly intelligent posts. :yep:









Or was it the lack of? :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

More likely the lack of :DL

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/2190/ferret.jpg

[krashkart]

Not only does it's density make it a premier material for modern ammunition. It's now considered the 9th essential vitamin in most of todays breakfast cereals.

“Now fortified with DEPLETED URANIUM!”

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070215190013/uncyclopedia/images/1/1b/Cereal_script.jpg


Drat! Now I'll have to reformulate my recipe for Super Crunchy Honey Toasted Formica Flakes to keep up with the competition. :damn:

<jingle>
Super Crunchy Honey Toas-ted Formi-ca Flakes!
They're so good you'll mas-ticate.

"Super Crunchy Honey Toasted Formica Flakes - a blast of melamine goodness in every bite!" :yeah:
</jingle>

Pretty sad. I know. :nope:

[joea]

My irresistible charm and mind-blowingly intelligent posts. :yep:









Or was it the lack of? :hmmm:

I just like your sigs. :yeah: :yep:

[Gerald]

:salute:

[CaptainMattJ.]

DU IS used as armor in the Abrams Tank.

The abrams tank is capable of taking any kind of shell. DU armor protects against any type of shell if you have enough of it. The M1 is armored versus chemical rounds, reactive rounds, High kenetic rounds and standard rounds.

Only Artillery, air strikes and the Javelin Launcher can pierce through its composite armor.

[Bakkels]

....but can it take on this shell?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfmnN01EBM1qiOviW5e67ogP7dS1xKm cECvLrdGVH38Czp9NtK

:nope: I know, I know. I'm bored :O:

[krashkart]

http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Tcsh_screenshot.png/250px-Tcsh_screenshot.png

Nothing can withstand the arrogant(:06:) might of csh! :stare:

[Stealhead]

DU IS used as armor in the Abrams Tank.

The abrams tank is capable of taking any kind of shell. DU armor protects against any type of shell if you have enough of it. The M1 is armored versus chemical rounds, reactive rounds, High kenetic rounds and standard rounds.

Only Artillery, air strikes and the Javelin Launcher can pierce through its composite armor.

I do believe that the DU used as armor in tanks is used only in certain areas and is also likely layered with other materials(the format of which is highly classified) in such a manner that it is not in direct contact with the tanks crewmen.No Abrams has been destroyed or killed outright by enemy fire well I take that back one was destroyed by a lucky Iraqi T-72 hit in 1991 the crew lived so the goal was achieved of saving the crew but several have been so severally damaged in Iraq that they where written off and sent to Alabama where the usable parts of the hull where used to rebuild "new" M1A2s no tanks is fully invincible if a DU dart round from any Brit,German,French or Russian MBT hit an Abrams it would kill it.

Any source that claims no Abrams have been lost in combat is incorrect as would one that claimed that no abrams crew has been lost A Marine Corps Abrams and its crew where lost in 2003 when the driver drove across a bridge that had a large section missing which the tank fell though into the Euphrates River the crew drowned the tank was probably salvaged.

Also you prove yourself incorrect by listed the Javelin that weapon uses a copper jet shaped charge if that can penetrate DU(which all modern tanks have) then obviously so can any enemy weapon deploying DU and even DU can be defeated by the right power of copper shaped charge.

Arms vs. Armor is an age old battle no one will trump the other for very long.

A post rating system would be a great idea if you ask me.

[CaptainMattJ.]

I do believe that the DU used as armor in tanks is used only in certain areas and is also likely layered with other materials(the format of which is highly classified) in such a manner that it is not in direct contact with the tanks crewmen.No Abrams has been destroyed or killed outright by enemy fire well I take that back one was destroyed by a lucky Iraqi T-72 hit in 1991 the crew lived so the goal was achieved of saving the crew but several have been so severally damaged in Iraq that they where written off and sent to Alabama where the usable parts of the hull where used to rebuild "new" M1A2s no tanks is fully invincible if a DU dart round from any Brit,German,French or Russian MBT hit an Abrams it would kill it.

Any source that claims no Abrams have been lost in combat is incorrect as would one that claimed that no abrams crew has been lost A Marine Corps Abrams and its crew where lost in 2003 when the driver drove across a bridge that had a large section missing which the tank fell though into the Euphrates River the crew drowned the tank was probably salvaged.

Also you prove yourself incorrect by listed the Javelin that weapon uses a copper jet shaped charge if that can penetrate DU(which all modern tanks have) then obviously so can any enemy weapon deploying DU and even DU can be defeated by the right power of copper shaped charge.

Arms vs. Armor is an age old battle no one will trump the other for very long.

A post rating system would be a great idea if you ask me.
Do you know how a javelin works?

The reason it penetrates the Abrams is because of its complete vertical impact to the weakest part of ANY tank: the Top. A javelin has been tested on an abrams and has, in fact, penetrated.

There are Very few rounds available to army and enemy tank drivers that can penetrate the M1 Abrams.

There hasnt been an abrams completely destroyed by enemy fire.

Many have been disabled. Some needed extensive repairs. But they were never completely destroyed by enemy fire.

There are cases of friendly fire from Apaches, and of U.S forces scuttling tanks that were left behind so that no top secret component or data could be recovered.

Crew have also been killed while outside the armor of the abrams by snipers and IEDs,

lets just say, when this thing rolls down the street theres little you can do but run your ASS off.

No one EVER said it was indestructible. but it IS the BEST tank in the world and takes more then what ordinary soldiers have at their disposal to take one out.

But lets just hope we dont go to war with france. The french have a hell of a lot a javelins :)

And, no not all modern tanks have DU armor. the T-90 does not employ DU armor.

[Stealhead]

I dont see what you point is really why do you assume that I do not know how something works?Everyone knows how the javelin works it has only been shown on 20 or 30 different Discovery and Military Channel shows but it still employes a copper shaped charge as it warhead and is still designed to hit the weakest part of a tank but any other nation can also design a missile with similar abilities and many nations employ DU dart rounds that will go through even an Abrams tank weather you believe it or not.

The thing also to consider is that when the Abrams that suffered serious damage it was caused by Iraqi insurgents with rather primitive weaponry they simply let the M1s pass by and waited for their fuel trucks to ride past later down the line and attacked them or they attacked the Abrams with the intent of disabling a non or poorly armored section and disabled the tank forcing it to be destroyed by allied troops in an insurgency that is a victory.

Also the Abrams cant be the best tank in the world when the British Challenger has a better combat ratio none have been destroyed or lost to enemy tank action not so with the M1A1 one of which was lost in 1991 but its crew protecting systems saved the crew the tank was destroyed and if a tank must scuttled then that counts as a loss as well.Dont even get me started on the low life span gas turbine engine that the Abrams uses they should swap that out for a good turbo diesel like the Brits and Germans use.

[Raptor1]

There are, in fact, plenty of ATGMs capable of making top attacks besides the Javelin. Curiously enough, I don't think the Soviet Union/Russia ever put such weapons into service, but many other nations have.

Also, declaring the Abrams to be the best in existence is slightly problematic considering that it, like most other modern tanks, has never faced a remotely comparable enemy force. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that no tank is superior in all areas to other comparable tanks...

[Stealhead]

:up: 100% agree on this one take the 1967 and the Yom Kippur wars many western analysts at first attributed the tank battle victories to have been thanks to the Israeli use of Western tanks many today feel that in fact it was not superior technology but superior training and more importantly will to win no matter what for the Israeli tanker he knew that his tank was all that stood between the enemy and the very survival of his nation.In some cases during Yom Kippur there where only one or two Israeli tanks still running and they faced vastly larger numbers.

Most every western anti-tank missile tries to hit from the top the Hellfire comes to mind right away.

I think the Soviet/Russian thinking is just keep shooting cheap missile after cheap missile at him sooner or later they will penetrate and by then some Russian will have run up and
thrown an explosive device at the engine exhaust as well if a Russian T-90 dose not score a hit with a APFSDS round assuming that an Abrams does not hit him with a APFSDS round first.
Too many factors to say what one MBT is truly the best.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

When comparing tanks its also good to remember that Soviets (and Russians today) always had two versions of their weapon: national and export. For example T-72 of Red Army and Finnish Army were not same. Version sold to Finland (and Iraq and...) was heavily tuned down version. One important feature not included in export version was modern armour.

Thats why estimates of quality/capabilities of Soviet/Russian weapons should not be made based on proxy wars or other conflicts where Soviet were not direct participant.

[Stealhead]

They usually have the same main gun though and that by and large is the most important part.The export Abrams also lack the DU layers of armor.What you say is very true for Soviet gear but even US gear is often a lesser version of the model used by the DOD unless they are a very close Ally like England whose Apaches are actually the best in the world but that is beacuse they are made by AgustaWestland and have differing systems and engines than the US Army model.Even the Aussies the M1A1s that they have also lack the DU layers.

[Anthony W.]

Its the most dense material on Earth. I'll go right through a tank, defeating it's reactive armor.

To my knowledge, it isn't too dangerous. I'm working on a process for embedding diamagnetic molecules in it using a particle accelerator to create a power source. All indications are that it is totally safe.

[Dowly]

Its the most dense material on Earth. I'll go right through a tank, defeating it's reactive armor.

To my knowledge, it isn't too dangerous. I'm working on a process for embedding diamagnetic molecules in it using a particle accelerator to create a power source. All indications are that it is totally safe.

Take this just in-case
http://archer.gamebanana.com/img/ico/sprays/crowbar_pic.png

[Jimbuna]

Take this just in-case
http://archer.gamebanana.com/img/ico/sprays/crowbar_pic.png

LOL :DL

http://www.addasnap.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=3234&g2_serialNumber=1

[Raptor1]

They usually have the same main gun though and that by and large is the most important part.

Though the fire control systems tended to be severely downgraded, and the ammunition exported with it was usually significantly inferior...

[Oberon]

Kontakt-5

Kontakt-5 was immune to the first mark of M829 Sabot, much to the surprise of the West. It broke up the DU dart before it could pierce the armour of the tank.

The west responded by creating the M829A2 and A3, but the Russians have also responded by upgrading the ERA to Relikt which is meant to be twice as effective as Kontakt-5. Furthermore, Kaktus has been proposed to counter the new era of M829E4.

[Tribesman]

Its the most dense material on Earth. I'll go right through a tank, defeating it's reactive armor.

It isn't the most dense by a long shot, but it is more widely available than the other materials and has properties which some of the much denser materials do not have.

[Jimbuna]

Here's a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density

Uranium comes in at 18800 and Osmium is six positions higher at 22570

[Anthony W.]

Should've corrected myself

Most dense WIDELY AVAILABLE material

[TLAM Strike]

Should've corrected myself

Most dense WIDELY AVAILABLE material

Well there is five times more Dark Matter in the Universe than normal matter so super dense matter such as black holes, neutron stars and brown dwarfs are far more common in a cosmolgical sense than Uranium, Osmium or any "normal" atomic element and far more dense.

So there is still hope for those who want to built their "Ultimate Weapon" armored with Neutronium.

[Dowly]

^ He said "on Earth" in his post before the last one. ;)

[TLAM Strike]

^ He said "on Earth" in his post before the last one. ;)

I'm sure the guys from CERN are working to correcting that...
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/6245/lhclargehadroncolliderg.jpg

[Oberon]

http://i33.tinypic.com/156z2vs.jpg

Still doesn't go 'right through a tank' particularly not if it's an early Sabot and the tank has Kontakt-5 in the way ;)

[CaptainMattJ.]

I dont see what you point is really why do you assume that I do not know how something works?Everyone knows how the javelin works it has only been shown on 20 or 30 different Discovery and Military Channel shows but it still employes a copper shaped charge as it warhead and is still designed to hit the weakest part of a tank but any other nation can also design a missile with similar abilities and many nations employ DU dart rounds that will go through even an Abrams tank weather you believe it or not.

The thing also to consider is that when the Abrams that suffered serious damage it was caused by Iraqi insurgents with rather primitive weaponry they simply let the M1s pass by and waited for their fuel trucks to ride past later down the line and attacked them or they attacked the Abrams with the intent of disabling a non or poorly armored section and disabled the tank forcing it to be destroyed by allied troops in an insurgency that is a victory.

Also the Abrams cant be the best tank in the world when the British Challenger has a better combat ratio none have been destroyed or lost to enemy tank action not so with the M1A1 one of which was lost in 1991 but its crew protecting systems saved the crew the tank was destroyed and if a tank must scuttled then that counts as a loss as well.Dont even get me started on the low life span gas turbine engine that the Abrams uses they should swap that out for a good turbo diesel like the Brits and Germans use.
1: The javelin is the most superior AT missile launcher. Its very lightweight, its totally fire and forget, and it always attacks from the top.

Its also MAN PORTABLE. its OBVIOUS that there are plenty of missiles that can penetrate the abrams such as Hellfires, but hellfires are not man portable. I was talking MAN portable.

2: The insurgents were not using primitive weaponry. SIMPLE, maybe. Primitive, no. They used high powered IEDs to blow off the tracks. RPGs wouldn't have done much either unless placed in the right spot. The abrams has been much more tested in combat. The abrams went through the gulf war against Saddam Husein's sizable republican gaurd Tank force and come out barely scratched. Its been through nearly a decade of fighting in the middle east. The abrams can be called the best tank in the world even though it best the challenger by only a small margin.

The challenger is an excellent tank of course.

3: The abrams isnt some super tank. It just happens that it hasnt been used against larger, more sophisticated armies like the germans and the british. But where it has been deployed, it has proven itself a force to be reckoned with.

[Stealhead]

Matt I dont really want to know more about how much you love the Javelin and the Abrams.You speak as if you are the sales rep for them both.Stop being so blind to numbers on things that have not been proven against equally trained or capable threats and an IED is a very simple weapon it costs a few hundred bucks at most not tens of thousands like each single missile system does and you fail to accept the fact that any missile can be counter measured against again something the Javelin has not faced in combat it went against crappy second grade 1980 T-72s at best it should be no wonder that we kicked the T-72s ass in 1991 they where not as well trained had a weapon that was out ranged by the Abrams gun and where employing an easily flankable combat stance.

And please stop RUDELY telling me things about weapons systems I know much about I spent several years in the USAF and know alot about weapon systems that you will not discover in books or on the web and also know that a weapons systems capability is only half of the equation.:salute:

And go play Half Life.

(http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/)

[Jimbuna]

Whilst on the subject of MBT's IMHO you can add the Leopard to the Abrams and Challenger for the best three types.

Which one is the best would be very difficult to decide, they all have pros and cons or strengths and weaknesses over each other.

[TLAM Strike]

Whilst on the subject of MBT's IMHO you can add the Leopard to the Abrams and Challenger for the best three types.

Which one is the best would be very difficult to decide, they all have pros and cons or strengths and weaknesses over each other.

I would also nominate the Korean K2 Black Panther, French Leclerc, Israeli Merkava IV and Italian Ariete.

[Oberon]

The fully upgraded T-90 isn't a bad piece of kit either. :salute:

[Jimbuna]

I would also nominate the Korean K2 Black Panther, French Leclerc, Israeli Merkava IV and Italian Ariete.

The fully upgraded T-90 isn't a bad piece of kit either. :salute:

Fair do's...everyone has differing opinions and that is why I believe it would be difficult even nigh on impossible to come to a successful conclusion everybody could agree on.

If I had to make a choice I think I'd probably go for the German Leopard as the best 'all rounder'.

[TLAM Strike]

If I had to make a choice I think I'd probably go for the German Leopard as the best 'all rounder'.

and I'd go with the Merkava IV, I love the idea of a MBT that hauls around some Infantry inside.

We all have our favorites I guess. :03:

[Jimbuna]

and I'd go with the Merkava IV, I love the idea of a MBT that hauls around some Infantry inside.

We all have our favorites I guess. :03:


Aye rgr that...but I'd love to see identically controlled testing of all the individual systems.

Not that any country is about to allow that of course :DL

[Stealhead]

What makes a good MBT depends much on the users goals and ideas for example the Merkava has its engine in the front rather than the rear to provide further crew protection because the IDF values crew survival they used some of that extra space to add the troop carrying compartment which world make it a useful tank in urban situations.

Same goes the the Leopard that tank has very high mobility as its primary focus.Every design is a compromise so each MBT out there is going to be designed with what the user deems most important and what is less important.Which also means that one MBT might be very good in its designed for element but not so good when being used outsides it design element which could be the sweet spot for a differing MBT design

[Oberon]

Oh, I'd probably wind up going for the Challenger II.

http://www.ssafa.org.uk/images/get_involved/fundraising/bigbrewup/BigBrewUp.jpg

http://www.grenadiersupplies.co.uk/ekmps/shops/grenadier/images/war-sign-when-in-doubt-brew-up-608-p.jpg

Not many tanks (if any) that come with their own kettle. :yeah:

[CaptainMattJ.]

Matt I dont really want to know more about how much you love the Javelin and the Abrams.You speak as if you are the sales rep for them both.Stop being so blind to numbers on things that have not been proven against equally trained or capable threats and an IED is a very simple weapon it costs a few hundred bucks at most not tens of thousands like each single missile system does and you fail to accept the fact that any missile can be counter measured against again something the Javelin has not faced in combat it went against crappy second grade 1980 T-72s at best it should be no wonder that we kicked the T-72s ass in 1991 they where not as well trained had a weapon that was out ranged by the Abrams gun and where employing an easily flankable combat stance.

And pl

ase stop RUDELY telling me things about weapons systems I know much about I spent several years in the USAF and know alot about weapon systems that you will not discover in books or on the web and also know that a weapons systems capability is only half of the equation.:salute:

And go play Half Life.

(http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/)
The abrams is a great tank. you seem to think that pitting it against well-trained Challengers and other modern tanks will prove it to be sub-par.

In the end, its impossible to determine the outcome. i never said the Challenger sucked. I never said that the abrams was far superior to the challenger. The abrams may or may not beat the challenger in some areas. theyre both outstanding tanks, along with many of the rest of the worlds modern tanks.

But the abrams has more combat experience under its belt. NO modern superpowers have clashed with these leading modern tanks. so you cant say that the challenger is more proven in any respect. the challenger can most likely (it IS still mostly classified) be disabled the same way an Abrams can.

im not necessarily putting the abrams on the pedestal and declaring it champion, nor am i putting the javelin on the spot. but i will defend them. they are some of the leading weapons. I dont "love" these systems but i understand what they can do and respect them as such.

And dont talk to me like im some ignorant nerd. Two of my brothers have served in the 1st armored division in the middle east. I do research the military.

The challenger was designed for what it was going to do. So was the leopard. And the merkava, the T-90, and the abrams. So, every tank is a good tank if it accomplishes what it sets out to do.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I am a supporter of a military using the weapons that it needs to perform its mission but they should have been more open about DU from the start rather than not doing so and then an issue occurring the DOD took a lax stance pre 1991 and it cost them.

To be fair, if they had been open about it, it is quite likely the American people will not have allowed its use, regardless of its military effectiveness. Civilians often have a poor grasp of strategic issues.

[Stealhead]

No I am not just talking about public relations here they where not open about it because pre 1991 as I said they never cautioned AMMO(the USAF folks who maintain munitions and load up air craft) troops to use any caution when handling DU rounds the DOD being a very strict follower of OSHA standards you are not supposed to be under a piece of machinery without safety glasses on for example while under a vehicle while changing the oil.Yet they at one point said nothing about DU even though they are very strict safety wise then suddenly post Gulf War 1991 they start giving safety warnings about the DU rounds:hmmm:

That means either they did not know for sure the possible health risks of DU pre 1991 or they found out that what they had previously thought was incorrect.The DOD should ahve at least been open with its very own troops without whom the DOD can achieve nothing with or with out DU.There is nothing wrong with using something hazardous if only when needed there is something wrong with not even cautioning your own troops.

@Matt I never said that you said the Challenger sucked having trouble fully reading posts again? It seems you failed to read one of mine because I already made comment about design compromise and MBTs yet you seem to be telling me this anyway even though I posted: "What makes a good MBT depends much on the users goals and ideas for example the Merkava has its engine in the front rather than the rear to provide further crew protection because the IDF values crew survival they used some of that extra space to add the troop carrying compartment which world make it a useful tank in urban situations.

Same goes the the Leopard that tank has very high mobility as its primary focus.Every design is a compromise so each MBT out there is going to be designed with what the user deems most important and what is less important.Which also means that one MBT might be very good in its designed for element but not so good when being used outsides it design element which could be the sweet spot for a differing MBT design."

Please Matt fully read other peoples posts before you post because it seems that you fail to do this.Again please also stop telling me things like: "NO modern superpowers have clashed with these leading modern tanks." I have been studying military history for many years as well as having served so do not post things directed towards me in a manner that assumes that I am ignorant.In case you did not know CAPPING things is used to imply yelling which implies rudeness unless You are saying "HAPPY BIRTHDAY" if you want to show emphasis on something use italics or bold. ;)

[andritsos]

Just a note, im not a student etc, nor i can say to have a real knowledge about that, i am doing highschool, i jgot interested in this matter and i would like to learn more and share opinion and points of view

nice info all in all.

another question i have recently raised,and i would like to point was that some people/scientist have reported about the use of DU not only in warheads but even on the missiles themselves. They concluded that after mesurements they have done in places such in Bosnia etc , in which their calculations were simply said 2:
the best case scenario ( DU used in cruise missile? no more than 5 KG of material)
the worst case scenario( missile/shell with DU,high penetration warhead, 50KG+ per cruise missile warhead)
all this concerning the use of DU in these battlefield.
regarding the best case, my first assumption was << why to use teh heaviest material , where what is needed is to make the object weight less?:hmmm:)
at that point i went thinking and asked my father which he told me for doing and introduction '' all is about making the right compromises, and this also applies for this case'' he told me that the compromise was to put that weight in order to make the cruise more controllable( less heavy in controls) * im sorry for bad english*
How? someone has in mind a section of an ailerion?
he told me that at high speeds( due to airflow, etc) it gets more difficult to move it. So in terms of Force , somewhere there should be a little problem somewhere
(consider the shape the ailerion and think if it was all of same material, where the baricentre would be , in relation to the mechanism that moves it)
he then told me that in order to move an ailerion more easily, the trick was about moving the baricentre towards the movement mechanism, and you achieve that by making the section away( from the mechanism) very lightweight, on the other part, you put something very heavy( DU in this case due to its low cost( 2 bucks per Kg) and weight( 1L = 19Kg) to the other part.In this way you move the baricentre.
that also may explain why old 747 had Uranium in their wings too

i wanted to share this here,what you think?