Bradleys kill t-72s

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: RossGr
Not sure if it is correct but I recall reading (sorry no link, so take it as a believe or not) DU ammo may release a stream of energetic neutrons upon impact, essentially the main shell stops but neutrons continue on, this can be fatal to the crew even if the impact does not destroy the tank. It was said that DU ammo were sort of a poor mans neutron bomb.

This is not true. The forces holding neutrons in place are millions upon millions times stronger than the relatively weak force of a bullet colliding with a tank. You simply will not be able to rip apart the nuclear structure of an atom by physical forces. It requires nuclear forces, such as nuclear fission.

 

[DaFinn]

Originally posted by: Oric
The correct question :

After the war is over, will these depleted uranium shells create radioactive poisoning and other related environmental problems ?

YES, as they did already after Desert Storm in -91. In Basra alone there has been a 700% increase in Cancer cases after -91!

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: DaFinn

Originally posted by: Oric
The correct question :

After the war is over, will these depleted uranium shells create radioactive poisoning and other related environmental problems ?

YES, as they did already after Desert Storm in -91. In Basra alone there has been a 700% increase in Cancer cases after -91!

Do you have any proof of this?

 

[DaFinn]

Originally posted by: Mk4

Originally posted by: Bleep
Why dont you click on the link I provided and you will see what depleted uranium is all about, it is also used as armor in the Bradly and the Tanks.

Since when have the Bradleys had DU? AFAIK only some later Abrams models are the only US vehicles with depleted uranium armor (probably "Dorchester" which was originally designed for Challenger 2).

Correct, Bradleys don't have DU:

"The hull of the M2 is constructed of welded aluminium and spaced laminate armour. In addition, the M2A2/M3A2 Bradleys have applique steel armour with provision for additional passive armour or explosive reactive armour for increased protection against ballistic weapons."



-DaFinn

 

[DaFinn]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: DaFinn

Originally posted by: Oric
The correct question :

After the war is over, will these depleted uranium shells create radioactive poisoning and other related environmental problems ?

YES, as they did already after Desert Storm in -91. In Basra alone there has been a 700% increase in Cancer cases after -91!

Do you have any proof of this?

A simple search of "Cancer +Basra" in Google will give you all the links you need!

Like this one...

-DaFinn

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: DaFinn
Correct, Bradleys don't have DU:

-DaFinn

Wrong. Bradleys do fire DU rounds.


Read

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: DaFinn
A simple search of "Cancer +Basra" in Google will give you all the links you need!

Like this one...

-DaFinn

That link is ridiculous! You linked me to an Islamic anti-US website. Look at the headlines on the right:

"Western Journalists Beaten, Starved by Americans "

"US troops suffer heavy losses in Baghdad fighting"

"Crusaders humiliating Iraqi Civilians"

"US forces use schools for cover"

Going by the other information on their site, do you really think you can trust this info?

 

[mk]

The secret for success? The Bradleys fired smaller shells, but they were of a particularly punishing variety made with depleted uranium, which pierced the armor of the heavier Iraqi vehicles.

"Particularly punishing" is quite a stretch considering that depleted uranium rounds only have a ~20% advantage in penetration compared to "conventional" ones made of tungsten carbide (especially if you're talking about small caliber weapons).

With penetration of around 8cm RHA the 25mm M919 rounds are quite useless against the front armor of a T-72 (~20-40cm in the basic models) meaning that if the hits were frontal (which seems to be the case since the tanks were firing back) the Bradleys had to have hit either the turret ring or some weak spot in the gun mantlet area.


edit: South African forces used to destroy enemy T-55's in Namibia with 20mm armed Ratel apc's by placing a few well aimed shots through the turret ring. It shouldn't be too difficult for a well trained Bradley crew.

 

[Marshallj]

I would think that the Bradleys would want to stay out of the T-72's range. It would make sense for them to stand off from a distance and use TOW's to hit the T-72s outside the T-72's range.

 

[DaFinn]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: DaFinn
Correct, Bradleys don't have DU:

-DaFinn

Wrong. Bradleys do fire DU rounds.


Read

We were talking about the armor of the Bradleys, if you cared to read the whole post...

 

[DaFinn]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: DaFinn
A simple search of "Cancer +Basra" in Google will give you all the links you need!

Like this one...

-DaFinn

That link is ridiculous! You linked me to an Islamic anti-US website. Look at the headlines on the right:

"Western Journalists Beaten, Starved by Americans "

"US troops suffer heavy losses in Baghdad fighting"

"Crusaders humiliating Iraqi Civilians"

"US forces use schools for cover"

Going by the other information on their site, do you really think you can trust this info?

Sorry, I just picked 1 link... I read about the Cancer problem from local newspaper, but again just search for yourself. A lot of links with those words... and not all Anti-American!


-DaFinn

 

[Marshallj]

Sorry, after reading a thread about the Bradley's bullets I thought that you were referring to them.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Oric
The correct question :

After the war is over, will these depleted uranium shells create radioactive poisoning and other related environmental problems ?

Yes they will cause enormous problems. That is why there is so much outcry about this. Look at all the previous conflicts where this horrible ammo has been used. I guess it is a cheap way for the US to dispose of their radioactive waste. Because other ppl achieve similar results using other non radioactive heavy hard materials. But like I said I guess it is cheap... and after all Americans won't be living there where this stuff is/was used - why should they care?

This stuff will contaminate the ground for years to come. And the ppl in those areas will suffer from increased cancer, especially blood cancer. Infant mortality will rise and babies will be born with horrible deformations and other defects. Basically it is the sort of bomb that they fear terrorists will be using (dirty bomb) - well it aint a bomb but by littering this stuff all over the place, it might as well contaminate way larger areas than a single dirty bomb could.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Mookow
There is a handy way to make U-238 useful for nuclear purposes

How would you make U-238 useful for nuclear purposes? By turning it into plutonium?

Yeah, in a breeder reactor

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Oric
The correct question :

After the war is over, will these depleted uranium shells create radioactive poisoning and other related environmental problems ?

Yes they will cause enormous problems. That is why there is so much outcry about this. Look at all the previous conflicts where this horrible ammo has been used. I guess it is a cheap way for the US to dispose of their radioactive waste. Because other ppl achieve similar results using other non radioactive heavy hard materials. But like I said I guess it is cheap... and after all Americans won't be living there where this stuff is/was used - why should they care?

This stuff will contaminate the ground for years to come. And the ppl in those areas will suffer from increased cancer, especially blood cancer. Infant mortality will rise and babies will be born with horrible deformations and other defects. Basically it is the sort of bomb that they fear terrorists will be using (dirty bomb) - well it aint a bomb but by littering this stuff all over the place, it might as well contaminate way larger areas than a single dirty bomb could.

*Sigh* Lets see... the studies done in Iraq, linking the cancer upswing + birth defects to DU, are basically put out by Saddam. When the WHO offered to go to Iraq and verify, the Iraqi authorities denied them access. I'm sure burning a sh!tload of oil and breathing it in had NOTHING to do with the cancer increase.

Also, DU is 40% less radioactive than uranium found in the earth, which is 1/20,000 as radioactive compared to plutonium. The hazard of DU is not the radioactivity, but rather the ingestion of DU. You house smoke detector puts out more radiation than a 30mm round from a GAU-8. WHO has found the dangers of DU to be "likely to be very small". The study was conducted in 2001. (see link #4)

link
link #2
link #3
Link #4

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: DaFinn

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: DaFinn
A simple search of "Cancer +Basra" in Google will give you all the links you need!

Like this one...

-DaFinn

That link is ridiculous! You linked me to an Islamic anti-US website. Look at the headlines on the right:

"Western Journalists Beaten, Starved by Americans "

"US troops suffer heavy losses in Baghdad fighting"

"Crusaders humiliating Iraqi Civilians"

"US forces use schools for cover"

Going by the other information on their site, do you really think you can trust this info?

Sorry, I just picked 1 link... I read about the Cancer problem from local newspaper, but again just search for yourself. A lot of links with those words... and not all Anti-American!


-DaFinn

The Study was commissioned, funded and approved by Saddam Hussein. After publishing he refused to allow WHO researchers to confirm. Because of this the information can be considered nothing more than propaganda.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Mk4

The secret for success? The Bradleys fired smaller shells, but they were of a particularly punishing variety made with depleted uranium, which pierced the armor of the heavier Iraqi vehicles.

"Particularly punishing" is quite a stretch considering that depleted uranium rounds only have a ~20% advantage in penetration compared to "conventional" ones made of tungsten carbide (especially if you're talking about small caliber weapons).

With penetration of around 8cm RHA the 25mm M919 rounds are quite useless against the front armor of a T-72 (~20-40cm in the basic models) meaning that if the hits were frontal (which seems to be the case since the tanks were firing back) the Bradleys had to have hit either the turret ring or some weak spot in the gun mantlet area.


edit: South African forces used to destroy enemy T-55's in Namibia with 20mm armed Ratel apc's by placing a few well aimed shots through the turret ring. It shouldn't be too difficult for a well trained Bradley crew.

Well, the penetration of any one slug isn't that impressive, but multiply that by 200 rounds per minute. Even if they're only getting a 20% hit ratio, that's going to chip away at the armor pretty fast, isn't it?

I keep thinking of this scenario in Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries: a stationary 100-ton Fafnir assault 'mech armed with dual Long Tom artillery pieces, dug in and standing still, versus a 50-ton Hellhound set up with two Rotary Autocannon/5's, closing on the Fafnir at 80kph+. Mr. Fafnir might have the big guns by a long shot, and about twice as much armor, but hitting a moving target with a slow-recycling ballistic weapon, particularly while being rattled by a non-stop stream of RAC5 slugs, can be difficult!

Yes I know, it's pathetic to compare a PC simulation game to the real thing. Anyway, my understanding is that a lot of work has gone into the Abrams tanks' targeting systems to allow accurate targeting while moving, even against moving targets (plus the crews are undoubtedly very well-trained, of course)

 

[railer]

Here's more propaganda from an obviously anti-american website. Or is that the 51st state....?


BBC DU Linky...


WHOOPS!! Maybe DU does cause cancer! Oh well...at least we're not getting sick...right everybody? <chants> USA! USA! USA!

 

[MadRat]

Just because it doesn't penetrate doesn't mean the concussion to the inner shell doesn't throw chunks of crap around the inside of the vehicle.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: railer
Here's more propaganda from an obviously anti-american website. Or is that the 51st state....?


BBC DU Linky...


WHOOPS!! Maybe DU does cause cancer! Oh well...at least we're not getting sick...right everybody? <chants> USA! USA! USA!

A 99 link, to a study performed by a scientist running "an independent lab" whos credentials are questionable and makes the statement:

Mr Coghill says the maximum effect will be reached about six months after the war, and he thinks the first cancers - probably leukaemias - will start to show up about a year after that.

And of course we have all seen the studies that prove a dramatic increase in Leukaemias in the balkans 6 months after the war in Kosovo ended.

The first rule of any scientific study for it to be valid is that it must be independently confirmed. Care to confirm? The science education in the world is appalling. Most people don't even understand the basic requirements of a valid scientific theory and the musings of deranged educated people.

 

[mk]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Well, the penetration of any one slug isn't that impressive, but multiply that by 200 rounds per minute. Even if they're only getting a 20% hit ratio, that's going to chip away at the armor pretty fast, isn't it?

I really hate it when people refer to modern anti tank ammunition as "slugs" (just a pet peeve of mine ) as the word is usually used for normal pistol/rifle caliber bullets. The similarity between a regular bullet and an apfsds round isn't all that striking IMO. The actual 25mm M919 penetrator has a diameter of 7-8mm and is ~10cm long while most large caliber apfsds penetrators' dimensions are 20-30mm and 70-80cm, respectively (the projectile length is usually the maximum allowed by the gun chamber and/or automatic loader).

As for the "chipping the armor" the penetration mechanics have changed a bit from the days of full caliber projectiles (as used in the WWII) when the rounds punched a hole through the steel plate (or at least tried to). The pressure created by the impact of a high speed AP round with a high length/diameter ratio basically causes the armor to melt and flow away from the penetrator.
If a penetration doesn't occur the rod just gets embedded in the armor; in some cases, depending on the composition of the plate the resistance to penetration might actually increase.

On a side note one of the more interesting properties of DU projectiles is that they are self sharpening. Whereas during the penetration older tungsten projectiles deform into a mushroom shape (caused by the tip slowing down much faster than the tail) which keeps slowing it down the DU rods erode in a way that they keep their original shape.

I keep thinking of this scenario in Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries: a stationary 100-ton Fafnir assault 'mech armed with dual Long Tom artillery pieces, dug in and standing still, versus a 50-ton Hellhound set up with two Rotary Autocannon/5's, closing on the Fafnir at 80kph+. Mr. Fafnir might have the big guns by a long shot, and about twice as much armor, but hitting a moving target with a slow-recycling ballistic weapon, particularly while being rattled by a non-stop stream of RAC5 slugs, can be difficult!

A battle mech wouldn't have much of a chance against a contemporary tank unit. In addition to being a very large and easy target there's no way you can protect a 15m high mech nearly as well as a 70 ton mbt with a frontal cross section of only a few m² (the turret front armor of M1A2 SEP, Challenger2 and Leopard2A6/Strv122 is probably close to 100cm vs KE and much more vs CE projectiles). In a cluttered environment it would get shot to pieces before getting a chance to fire back.

Yes I know, it's pathetic to compare a PC simulation game to the real thing. Anyway, my understanding is that a lot of work has gone into the Abrams tanks' targeting systems to allow accurate targeting while moving, even against moving targets (plus the crews are undoubtedly very well-trained, of course)

All modern fire control systems are good enough to practically guarantee hits in such conditions although a tanker would probably say that the tank with the best crew almost always wins.

 

[mechBgon]

If a 31st-century Battlemech existed in today's world, I'd imagine it would have an easy time dealing with today's tanks. The aforementioned Fafnir is wearing about 20 tons of armor plate and carries two Heavy Gauss Rifles (seventeen tons each, plus sixteen 62kg slugs), and can pack a pair of heavy lasers for backup. At any rate, in the game, swarms of tanks usually end up being an annoyance but not a serious threat.