I see very interesting for tanks to have ammunition that allows them to fight outside the range of the portable/man-portable weapons, which limit is marked by 120mm light mortars with rocket assisted ammunition.
Why? Because it would allow to the tanks to attack infantry formations without support of heavy weapons from outside the range of every weapon that they have, without risk, and would reinforce very significantly the action of the artillery and the Surface-Surface weapons (both habitually present in much lower amounts).
Dude... when a tank is facing portable anti tank weapons it wont be firing DU rounds... it will be firing HE rounds... a T-72 can fire HE shells to about 9km based on elevation limitations of the main gun... park on a hill and you could probably fire rounds three or four times further.
While I tend to think that the 152mm caliber is very interesting for the tanks in the armata platform and will succeed, I expect also rocket assisted ammunition for the 125mm caliber and the current tanks. 125mm ammunition always should have bigger range than the 120mm ammunition of the same type (also of other countries), and this would mean a range of around 17-18 Km.
In theory a 125mm gun should be more powerful than a 120mm gun, but then the difference wont actually have that much practical difference.
It is like 7.62 x 54mm ammo compared with 7.62 x 51mm. When loading for hunting you can load heavier bullets in the Soviet round because its case is bigger but in terms of effect on target I very much doubt the target would actually notice the difference in bullet weight or speed.
Fresh concrete or ashes from powerplant are more radioactive than depelted uranium fyi
Very true but if you ingest them the human body does not confuse them with Calcium and use them to build bone structure in your body with them. Being near your bones or inside your bones that puts the radiation right next to your bone marrow... you don't want that near your bones... or I should say your future offspring don't want it there... it leads to tragedies like things called jelly babies... it is heart breaking to see...
Also we are talking mainly about U-235 which basically radiates alpha particles which are harmless for living as they cant penetrate our skin at all. It becomes dangerous after its used, as it makes cloud of very fine U-235 dust which can be inhaled, now that is not something you want.
So you are saying it is bad but OK as long as it is not used.
Obvious problem is that we are talking about armour penetration rounds used in enormous numbers... we are not talking about nuclear warheads locked up and stored somewhere for Armageddon.
Tungsten-nickel-cobalt alloy which was proposed for rod penetrators is carcinogenic if you somehow end up exposed to it for prolonged periods of time like inhaling its dust or swallowing it etc, so it basically comes to same thing.
Giving you cancer is not the same as condemning your children and their children to mutations and deformities.
Only difference is in the price and availability, where DU wins... big time.
Doubly so because you don't need to pay to get rid of it.
Of course that only applies to an evil user who takes no steps to clean up the messes they make... like the US and all the chemical agents including orange for example in Vietnam.
Irrelevant to my point. You first have to consume enough of it to matter.
In the fine powder created when it is used it enters the food chain... whether you breathe it in at the impact point or it gets in the ground water, or a dog eats it and brings it to your town. The stuff has a half life of millions of years... in a million years 500 grammes becomes 250 grammes.
Over 99% of the DU mass will sediment out in the vicinity of the impact. The
tiny nanometer scale fraction will dilute rapidly in the turbulent atmospheric boundary layer. So the exposure to civilians is minimal.
The problem in the middle east is that everything is one big desert so that the wind can recycle some fraction of the DU aerosol back
into the air and increase civilian exposure. This is not going to happen in Europe and Russia.
Sediment into the ground water...
So what you are saying is that instead of burying uranium waste it should just be burned into a fine powder and left to sediment into the ground? That would be much cheaper than sealing it in drums and burying it deep underground... I wonder why they dont do that?
Sorry but that is a misleading statement. The soil already emits radiation from natural uranium. The tank shell DU will contaminate battle zones but
to a degree much less than the Chernobyl fallout. BTW, DU has less radiation than natural uranium since the concentration of 235 is lower due to
processing (natural uranium has over 0.72% of isotope 235 while DU has less than 0.4%.) The concentration of Uranium in soils varies between 0.4 mg/kg
and 12 mg/kg. The low end is not typical.
the human body does not use soil to build bone structure so it never gets anywhere near the human bones.
The US fired off around 386,000 kg of DU at its testing ranges as of the year 2000. This highlights my main points:
1) Dispersion of DU is very limited, otherwise it would have escaped as nanoparticulate far from the testing ranges
2) Why talk about battlefield contamination as if people will growth their food there.
The exaggerated impact of DU is yet another example of anti-nuclear hysteria.
Hahahahaa... so information about increases in mutation and birth defects in places where DU is used is because what they started eating soil?
If DU is so safe then why did the Germans develop a new tank gun with a longer barrel so their Tungsten shells would perform to a similar level to DU shells from the older shorter barrel?
Why does the Royal Navy not use DU rounds in their Phalanx CIWS?