Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15948
    Points : 16649
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:32 am

    DU is genotoxic... if it gets into your body the body treats it like calcium and puts it in your bones.

    Outside the body its very weak radioactivity wont even penetrate skin but inside your bones the radiation mutates genetic code at the cellular level... and not comic book cool mutations like X Men... bad mutations like no arms or no legs or no brain type mutations.

    The very low level of radioactivity means they remain dangerous for thousands of years... vastly worse than any chemical or bio weapon.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 566
    Points : 590
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:DU is genotoxic... if it gets into your body the body treats it like calcium and puts it in your bones.

    Outside the body its very weak radioactivity wont even penetrate skin but inside your bones the radiation mutates genetic code at the cellular level... and not comic book cool mutations like X Men... bad mutations like no arms or no legs or no brain type mutations.

    The very low level of radioactivity means they remain dangerous for thousands of years... vastly worse than any chemical or bio weapon.
    Agreed 100%. DU is a filthy material, just about the most unethical and immoral material that one could use, short of actual nukes. The fact that the Yankistani military is so keen on its use, despite the horrendous & well documented impact it has on public health, is a great example of the intrinsic evil nature of the Western globalists and their paid enforcer class. If should only be used in very sparing circumstances, and promoting it because it is perceived as "inexpensive" is not good enough. If that is an example of the Wests guiding morality, its only a short step to underground V2 factories using slave labour...
    avatar
    eehnie
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 863
    Points : 888
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:26 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    But how about launching a laser guided round in high trajectory like howitzer round .

    But why?

    Surely it makes more sense to leave hitting targets behind the enemy front line to actual artillery vehicles where heavier calibres like 152mm shells can hit targets 70km distant.

    Infantry or uav can illuminate target tank . Range can be 15 km . But need to design tank barrel to be capable of high elevation . Design problem .

    Why bother when artillery can already do this?

    Also like howitzer . Shells can be stored in towed armored trailer behind tank . And fed into tank by small reciprocating conveyor . Many round can be carried . This trailor discarded when tank closes with enemy .

    During the Soviet conflict in Afghanistan vehicles often had trailers... though not armoured trailers, that carried extra HE shells for the use of the vehicles against unarmoured targets... they basically used them as heavily protected artillery vehicles. I suspect it would make more sense to use artillery vehicles or indeed IFVs in that role with either high velocity 57mm main guns or medium pressure larger calibre weapons like 100mm rifled guns like the 100mm gun from the BMP-3 or a 120mm gun/mortar or the Vena or other mortar carrier.

    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).

    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.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5309
    Points : 5354
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:30 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Benya wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Project Canada wrote:
    Rosatom to create ammunition for Armata tanks

    http://tass.com/defense/929501

    Ahhhh good old depleted uranium APDS.

    Nothing packs bigger punch. I like it.

    DU again? Mad

    I don't want to restart the argument about the DU-tipped ammo, but I think that in the future they (or anyone) will develop a Tungsten alloy tip to APDS rounds (, let's say Tungsten-carbide/Chrome/Vanadium alloy) which would be cheaper and easier to produce/handle, unlike DU.

    Tungsten is not much healthier than DU tbh, dust they both produce upon penetration is not good for you, either is or surroundings. Also DU is basically a waste, useless mass of crap they would have to store somewhere instead of turning them into new product that costs shitloads. Tungsten costs shitloads, its very valuable material for industry, DU is not.
    Except tungsten isn't radioactive

    Fresh concrete or ashes from powerplant are more radioactive than depelted uranium fyi Smile. 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.

    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.

    Only difference is in the price and availability, where DU wins... big time.
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2724
    Points : 2855
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  kvs on Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:45 am

    GarryB wrote:DU is genotoxic... if it gets into your body the body treats it like calcium and puts it in your bones.

    Irrelevant to my point. You first have to consume enough of it to matter. The civilian population is not going to be packed around every
    DU shell impact to breathe in the DU aerosol particles. 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.


    Outside the body its very weak radioactivity wont even penetrate skin but inside your bones the radiation mutates genetic code at the cellular level... and not comic book cool mutations like X Men... bad mutations like no arms or no legs or no brain type mutations.

    The very low level of radioactivity means they remain dangerous for thousands of years... vastly worse than any chemical or bio weapon.

    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.

    http://www.scitechnol.com/uranium-fixation-and-removal-from-different-soil-types-review-9t8A.pdf

    This reference suggest 2 mg/kg is a typical concentration. Say I have 1000 kg or 1 million mg of DU and I spread it around. The soil density is about
    1.3 kg/L so the upper 0.5 cm will need to have an area of 2000 cm^2 to contain 1.3 kg and a 1530 cm^2 area will hold 1 kg. This about a 39 cm x 39 cm patch.
    To contaminate the soil to the background average of 2 mg/kg I need to spread it over 500,000 such patches. So a 277 km x 277 km wasteland is needed.

    But wait.

    Who said 2 mg/kg is even worthy of discussion. I would only care about 200 mg/kg. So now we are talking about a wasteland of 27.7 km x 27.7 km.

    http://www.laka.org/info/publicaties/vu/where-how-much-01/main.html

    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.

    baron8201
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 20
    Points : 28
    Join date : 2017-01-17

    Special Forces

    Post  baron8201 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:30 pm

    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15948
    Points : 16649
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:21 am

    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?



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    baron8201
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 20
    Points : 28
    Join date : 2017-01-17

    Mi-28NM

    Post  baron8201 on Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:01 am


    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:19 pm