Hi,
I'm again asking and not able to give data to all of you...
My question now is asking to all of you which is the best tank gun antitank rounds.....????
Now I have more questions:
About DM53 and DM63 from Rheimetall, what is their penetrator rod made of?? and the french OFL-120 F1 from nexter?? are steel, tungsten or DU??
Best regards
Mirlo
Full Version: Tank gun antitank ammunition
What is a "Tnak"? 
Tank.....upppsss!!!
If DU is not a political no-no for you then M829A3 is definately the best (greatest penetration performance) "current" 120mm round.
If DU is a political no-no for you then either DM53/63 or KEWA2 but then you need the longer 55 cal barrel to get penetration performance similar to the M829A2 from a 44 cal barrel & you would get penetration performance similar to the M829A1 from a 44 cal barrel if you have the 44 cal barrel (the 50 cal & 52 cal barrels would be in between).
If DU is a political no-no for you then either DM53/63 or KEWA2 but then you need the longer 55 cal barrel to get penetration performance similar to the M829A2 from a 44 cal barrel & you would get penetration performance similar to the M829A1 from a 44 cal barrel if you have the 44 cal barrel (the 50 cal & 52 cal barrels would be in between).
QUOTE(pfcem @ Fri 25 May 2007 0853) 
If DU is a political no-no for you then either DM53/63 or KEWA2 but then you need the longer 55 cal barrel to get penetration performance similar to the M829A2 from a 44 cal barrel & you would get penetration performance similar to the M829A1 from a 44 cal barrel if you have the 44 cal barrel (the 50 cal & 52 cal barrels would be in between).
All the while keeping in mind though that the assumed penetration values here for each round are questimates, not measured facts. We simply don't really know how the DM63 and M829A3 accurately compare. If someone did, he wouldn't be proclaiming it here.
Hi
That is right!!! everything are estimations!! no one know what are the penetration capabilities of these rounds.
Regarding the DU rounds I'm concerned about the health risks. Does somebody know anything about it?? What countries are manufacturing DU Rounds??. I know that USA, Russia, UK, France do what what abouth China, Israel, India and Pakistan??
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the DU against the Tungsten (W) rounds??
Best regards
Mirlo
QUOTE
All the while keeping in mind though that the assumed penetration values here for each round are questimates, not measured facts. We simply don't really know how the DM63 and M829A3 accurately compare. If someone did, he wouldn't be proclaiming it here.
That is right!!! everything are estimations!! no one know what are the penetration capabilities of these rounds.
Regarding the DU rounds I'm concerned about the health risks. Does somebody know anything about it?? What countries are manufacturing DU Rounds??. I know that USA, Russia, UK, France do what what abouth China, Israel, India and Pakistan??
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the DU against the Tungsten (W) rounds??
Best regards
Mirlo
QUOTE(Mirlo @ Fri 25 May 2007 1138)
Regarding the DU rounds I'm concerned about the health risks. Does somebody know anything about it??
DU, being a heavy alloy has evident health risks, just like other heavy metals like mercury. Pretty low radioactivity, but if it gets into your body it tends to settle in such places as the kidney and the bone.
QUOTE(Exel @ Fri 25 May 2007 0247)
All the while keeping in mind though that the assumed penetration values here for each round are questimates, not measured facts. We simply don't really know how the DM63 and M829A3 accurately compare. If someone did, he wouldn't be proclaiming it here.
QUOTE(Mirlo @ Fri 25 May 2007 0338)
That is right!!! everything are estimations!! no one know what are the penetration capabilities of these rounds.
Yes based on estimates. Estimates made based on putting together publicly released information such as projectile length & MV.
QUOTE(Mirlo @ Fri 25 May 2007 0338)
Regarding the DU rounds I'm concerned about the health risks. Does somebody know anything about it??
If you are concerned about the health risks of DU rounds then you should also be concerned about the health risks of WHA rounds.
The majority of the babble about DU health risks is poilitically motivated exaggeration or outright fallacy.
QUOTE(Mirlo @ Fri 25 May 2007 0338)
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the DU against the Tungsten (W) rounds??
At impact velocities < ~2000m/s DU provides superior penetration - it also has added after penetration effects. The difference increases with lower velocity (I have theorized that one of the reasons why the M829A3 is so comparatively slow - note that 1555 is really only ~12.5% less than 1750 but some people seem to think it is much more significant that it really is - is to take fuller advantage of this; the fact that the M829A3 projectile/penetrator is so much bigger & heavier than previous ones obviously does). DU itself is comparatively inexpensive but it is more expensive to machine than WHA.
A question for the brits regarding the DU rounds developed in the UK. Many webs and officials are stating that the DU is not a big health hazard but I found the following:
source: http://www.obsarm.org/publications/cahiers...entionelles.htm
My questions are:
1) Have you found public official reports that are against the use of DU rounds?
2) Is true what states this french web site or not?
3) What do you think about DU rouds?
4) Why tungsten is not so good while has even more density that U?
5) It seems that there are reports from the WHO that confirm a huge leukemia increase in the areas where the DU was used?
Best regards
Mirlo
QUOTE
E - Les munitions britanniques à l’uranium appauvri
La fabrication de munitions à l’uranium appauvri par le Royaume-Uni a été révélée par le quotidien The Guardian qui a eu, en 1993, la copie d’une licence d’exportation d’uranium appauvri du gouvernement américain au bénéfice de British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL). La licence d’exportation, datée du 5 octobre 1993, autorise l’exportation de 158 758 kg d’uranium appauvri à BNFL, de quoi fabriquer des dizaines de milliers de munitions à l’uranium appauvri. En fait, dans un document américain antérieur que le Guardian ne possédait pas et daté du 25 septembre 1979, on apprend que deux licences d’exportation datées du 3 mai et du 20 juin 1979 avaient été accordées par l’armée de terre américaine au Royaume-Uni et concernaient l’exportation de 250 kg d’uranium appauvri pour la recherche et la mise au point de pénétrateurs de gros calibres à l’uranium appauvri.
Le quotidien britannique avait cependant, dévoilé le rôle peu connu jusqu’alors, de BNFL dans la fabrication d’armes pour les forces britanniques. En effet, cette société est plutôt connue pour ses activités dans le retraitement du combustible nucléaire, notamment à Sellafield.
BNFL fabrique des pénétrateurs à l’uranium appauvri à son usine Springfields Works à Preston (Lancashire). La licence l’exportation américaine qui devait expirer le 31 janvier 1995, autorisait BNFL à fabriquer des munitions avec cet uranium appauvri pour les besoins des forces britanniques, mais elle autorise également l’exportation vers des Etats membre de l’OTAN.
La société d’armement anglaise, Royal Ordnance, filiale de British Aerospace, fabrique les munitions de 120 mmm à l’uranium appauvri. En fait, BNFL fournit les pénétrateurs à l’uranium appauvri et Royal Ordnance effectue l’assemblage dans une cartouche de 120 mm dans ses usines de Wolverhampton et de Chorley, dans le Lancashire. Deux types de munitions antichars ont été réalisés conjointement par les deux sociétés :
- APFSDS-T L26 Charm 1 pour le canon L 26 des chars de combat britanniques Challenger 1 et 2.
- APFSDS L27 Charm 3 pour le canon L 27. Ce dernier modèle serait plus performant que le précédent. Il a été développé dans les
années 90, mais sa mise en service a été retardée en 1997 par manque de terrain d’essais au Royaume-Uni. Une version de la munition APFSDS L27A1 est entrée en service en 1999 dans les régiments britanniques équipés du char Challenger 2.
L’une des usines de Royal Ordnance ne serait plus actuellement opérationnelle en raison d’un important incendie d’uranium appauvri en février 1999..
Les sites d’essais de munitions à l’uranium appauvri
Il ne semble pas que des munitions de ce type aient été utilisées par les chars de combat britanniques pendant la guerre du Golfe. Cependant, des munitions américaines à l’uranium appauvri auraient été utilisées en petit nombre par les chars anglais. Selon l’organisation britannique The Edge, le ministre de la défense britannique a reconnu que l’armée britannqiue avait tiré 80 cartouches à l’uranium appauvri au cours de la guerre du Golfe.
Par contre, des essais de ces munitions ont été effectués sur des sites d’Ecosse et de Cumbria (région des lacs au nord-ouest du Royaume-Uni). Ces essais ont commencé en 1980, à Eskmeals (Cumbria) et sur le camp militaire de Dundrennan, au sud-ouest de l’Ecosse, en 1981. En tout, près de 7 000 auraient été tirées depuis 1983.
En juin 1993, à la suite d’une question d’un parlementaire, le ministre de la défense britannique a répondu que ces tirs ne provoquaient que des taux très faibles de radioactivité. Mais, lorsqu’un rapport d’enquête a été rendu public en juillet 1993, on s’est rendu compte que la contamination était importante en dehors de la zone contrôlée de Eskmeals et que les échantillons d’herbe et de sol à Kirkcudbright (près de Dundrennan) étaient bien en dessus des limites acceptables.
Le 13 novembre 1989, un tir raté de munition à l’uranium appauvri, sur le site de Dundrennan, a atteint les falaises rocheuses. Il en a résulté une concentration locale de 1 692 mp/kg d’uranium appauvri dépassant nettement les limites fixées par le ministère de la défense. Les populations proches du site d’essais militaires de Dundrennan, connaissent actuellement le plus fort taux de leucémie infantile du Royaume-Uni.
La fabrication de munitions à l’uranium appauvri par le Royaume-Uni a été révélée par le quotidien The Guardian qui a eu, en 1993, la copie d’une licence d’exportation d’uranium appauvri du gouvernement américain au bénéfice de British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL). La licence d’exportation, datée du 5 octobre 1993, autorise l’exportation de 158 758 kg d’uranium appauvri à BNFL, de quoi fabriquer des dizaines de milliers de munitions à l’uranium appauvri. En fait, dans un document américain antérieur que le Guardian ne possédait pas et daté du 25 septembre 1979, on apprend que deux licences d’exportation datées du 3 mai et du 20 juin 1979 avaient été accordées par l’armée de terre américaine au Royaume-Uni et concernaient l’exportation de 250 kg d’uranium appauvri pour la recherche et la mise au point de pénétrateurs de gros calibres à l’uranium appauvri.
Le quotidien britannique avait cependant, dévoilé le rôle peu connu jusqu’alors, de BNFL dans la fabrication d’armes pour les forces britanniques. En effet, cette société est plutôt connue pour ses activités dans le retraitement du combustible nucléaire, notamment à Sellafield.
BNFL fabrique des pénétrateurs à l’uranium appauvri à son usine Springfields Works à Preston (Lancashire). La licence l’exportation américaine qui devait expirer le 31 janvier 1995, autorisait BNFL à fabriquer des munitions avec cet uranium appauvri pour les besoins des forces britanniques, mais elle autorise également l’exportation vers des Etats membre de l’OTAN.
La société d’armement anglaise, Royal Ordnance, filiale de British Aerospace, fabrique les munitions de 120 mmm à l’uranium appauvri. En fait, BNFL fournit les pénétrateurs à l’uranium appauvri et Royal Ordnance effectue l’assemblage dans une cartouche de 120 mm dans ses usines de Wolverhampton et de Chorley, dans le Lancashire. Deux types de munitions antichars ont été réalisés conjointement par les deux sociétés :
- APFSDS-T L26 Charm 1 pour le canon L 26 des chars de combat britanniques Challenger 1 et 2.
- APFSDS L27 Charm 3 pour le canon L 27. Ce dernier modèle serait plus performant que le précédent. Il a été développé dans les
années 90, mais sa mise en service a été retardée en 1997 par manque de terrain d’essais au Royaume-Uni. Une version de la munition APFSDS L27A1 est entrée en service en 1999 dans les régiments britanniques équipés du char Challenger 2.
L’une des usines de Royal Ordnance ne serait plus actuellement opérationnelle en raison d’un important incendie d’uranium appauvri en février 1999..
Les sites d’essais de munitions à l’uranium appauvri
Il ne semble pas que des munitions de ce type aient été utilisées par les chars de combat britanniques pendant la guerre du Golfe. Cependant, des munitions américaines à l’uranium appauvri auraient été utilisées en petit nombre par les chars anglais. Selon l’organisation britannique The Edge, le ministre de la défense britannique a reconnu que l’armée britannqiue avait tiré 80 cartouches à l’uranium appauvri au cours de la guerre du Golfe.
Par contre, des essais de ces munitions ont été effectués sur des sites d’Ecosse et de Cumbria (région des lacs au nord-ouest du Royaume-Uni). Ces essais ont commencé en 1980, à Eskmeals (Cumbria) et sur le camp militaire de Dundrennan, au sud-ouest de l’Ecosse, en 1981. En tout, près de 7 000 auraient été tirées depuis 1983.
En juin 1993, à la suite d’une question d’un parlementaire, le ministre de la défense britannique a répondu que ces tirs ne provoquaient que des taux très faibles de radioactivité. Mais, lorsqu’un rapport d’enquête a été rendu public en juillet 1993, on s’est rendu compte que la contamination était importante en dehors de la zone contrôlée de Eskmeals et que les échantillons d’herbe et de sol à Kirkcudbright (près de Dundrennan) étaient bien en dessus des limites acceptables.
Le 13 novembre 1989, un tir raté de munition à l’uranium appauvri, sur le site de Dundrennan, a atteint les falaises rocheuses. Il en a résulté une concentration locale de 1 692 mp/kg d’uranium appauvri dépassant nettement les limites fixées par le ministère de la défense. Les populations proches du site d’essais militaires de Dundrennan, connaissent actuellement le plus fort taux de leucémie infantile du Royaume-Uni.
source: http://www.obsarm.org/publications/cahiers...entionelles.htm
My questions are:
1) Have you found public official reports that are against the use of DU rounds?
2) Is true what states this french web site or not?
3) What do you think about DU rouds?
4) Why tungsten is not so good while has even more density that U?
5) It seems that there are reports from the WHO that confirm a huge leukemia increase in the areas where the DU was used?
Best regards
Mirlo
QUOTE(Mirlo @ Tue 29 May 2007 1238)
Why tungsten is not so good while has even more density that U?
DU has a few qualities that tungsten alloys don't, or they are not quite as good. DU is self-sharpening, so the penetrator doesn't blunt itself unlike tungsten penetrators when punching through armor, which makes for better penetration characteristics. DU is also pyrophoric, meaning it ignites itself and everything it touches, making for a great post-penetration effect. Perhaps most importantly though, DU is cheap and available. Tungsten alloys can be manufactured to match the qualities of DU, but it's very expensive. Tungsten itself is not a cheap material, and processing it into a capable penetrator is certainly less so.
QUOTE(Mirlo @ Tue 29 May 2007 0338)
My questions are:
1) Have you found public official reports that are against the use of DU rounds?
2) Is true what states this french web site or not?
3) What do you think about DU rouds?
4) Why tungsten is not so good while has even more density that U?
5) It seems that there are reports from the WHO that confirm a huge leukemia increase in the areas where the DU was used?
1) Have you found public official reports that are against the use of DU rounds?
2) Is true what states this french web site or not?
3) What do you think about DU rouds?
4) Why tungsten is not so good while has even more density that U?
5) It seems that there are reports from the WHO that confirm a huge leukemia increase in the areas where the DU was used?
1) Yes
2) ? I can't read French
3) Health hazards a greatly exaggerated. The radiation levels are so incredibly low as to almost a non-factor & its other health hazards are also true for all heavy metals including Tungsten.
4) Actually DU alloys are denser than Tungsten alloys (due in no small part to the comparatively large % of DU vs Tungsten).
"Conventional" DU (80's/early 90's penetrators)........U-0.75Ti.............18.6g/cc
"Conventional" WHA (80's/early 90's penetrators).....90W-9Ni-1Co.....17.1g/cc
5) ?
As for the health hazards, one of our army's lead toxicologists did put it nicely: If you are at/near a vehicle hit by DU penetrator, health risks of DU are the least problem you have
I believe it was found manyof the "strange diseases" were indeed intoxications from having too close looks on wrecks of enemy equipment, even though such behavior was officially forbidden AFAIK - in a wrecked vehicle, even if it wasn't hit by DU or WHA, there is quite a lot of nasty stuff beginning a buttload of lead from the accumulators and electronics. If the vehicle burned in the meantime, the worse...
I believe it was found manyof the "strange diseases" were indeed intoxications from having too close looks on wrecks of enemy equipment, even though such behavior was officially forbidden AFAIK - in a wrecked vehicle, even if it wasn't hit by DU or WHA, there is quite a lot of nasty stuff beginning a buttload of lead from the accumulators and electronics. If the vehicle burned in the meantime, the worse...
There was a fire at an RO factory in February 1999. It was in Featherstone, Staffordshire, not Lancashire:
http://www.hpa.nhs.uk/hpa/news/nrpb_archiv...tement_2_99.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3148853.stm is a reference to the Dundrennan site, but as usual for the media is short on facts and long on FUD.
The CR" uses the L30 gun, not an L27. Maybe there was an L27 experimental gun?
The core of your question concerns the infantile leukaemia rates around Dundrennan, which the article associates by proximity of discussion to the "escape" of a DU round as far as cliffs in the Dundrennan area. Presumably an overshoot that fell outside of the designated range. The date of that incident was 1989.
This Hansard entry shows the statistics for Dumfries and Galloway in from 1974 to 1996:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...xt/90225w11.htm
(table about two thirds down the page)
The numbers don't by cursory examination show a significant deviation from the expected values, and are so low that two cases in one year would look like an epidemic, but wouldn't be statistically significant.
It should also be noted that the time period covers the general claims of rises in infantile Leukaemia following the Chernobyl incident.
To answer your questions.
1. No. But it's possible that there may be official restrictions on DU round use on training ranges in the UK. L27 round production has now ceased.
2. It's a curate's egg. Some of the facts are likely correct, some are clearly not. The inferences are unsupported by statistical data, and no reputable external sources are cited. Newspapers don't count as reputable citations when formal medical claims are being made.
3. They do the job better than any other round. They represent a classic example of how some risks have to be tolerated to reduce the overall risk to own forces in time of war.
4. This merits a couple of thousand academic papers and much research money. The general opinion (subject to my misinterpretation) over in the Scientific Forum relates to adiabatic shear which allows a DU penetrator to "self sharpen" when penetrating, rather than forming a "mushroom" head, which seems to be the mode of most other materials, although recent tungsten rounds claim to have reproduced this effect.
5. If there's a WHO report, then the article doesn't mention it. Citation? Was this report about Europe-wide leukaemia rates post Chernobyl?
David
http://www.hpa.nhs.uk/hpa/news/nrpb_archiv...tement_2_99.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3148853.stm is a reference to the Dundrennan site, but as usual for the media is short on facts and long on FUD.
The CR" uses the L30 gun, not an L27. Maybe there was an L27 experimental gun?
The core of your question concerns the infantile leukaemia rates around Dundrennan, which the article associates by proximity of discussion to the "escape" of a DU round as far as cliffs in the Dundrennan area. Presumably an overshoot that fell outside of the designated range. The date of that incident was 1989.
This Hansard entry shows the statistics for Dumfries and Galloway in from 1974 to 1996:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...xt/90225w11.htm
(table about two thirds down the page)
The numbers don't by cursory examination show a significant deviation from the expected values, and are so low that two cases in one year would look like an epidemic, but wouldn't be statistically significant.
It should also be noted that the time period covers the general claims of rises in infantile Leukaemia following the Chernobyl incident.
To answer your questions.
1. No. But it's possible that there may be official restrictions on DU round use on training ranges in the UK. L27 round production has now ceased.
2. It's a curate's egg. Some of the facts are likely correct, some are clearly not. The inferences are unsupported by statistical data, and no reputable external sources are cited. Newspapers don't count as reputable citations when formal medical claims are being made.
3. They do the job better than any other round. They represent a classic example of how some risks have to be tolerated to reduce the overall risk to own forces in time of war.
4. This merits a couple of thousand academic papers and much research money. The general opinion (subject to my misinterpretation) over in the Scientific Forum relates to adiabatic shear which allows a DU penetrator to "self sharpen" when penetrating, rather than forming a "mushroom" head, which seems to be the mode of most other materials, although recent tungsten rounds claim to have reproduced this effect.
5. If there's a WHO report, then the article doesn't mention it. Citation? Was this report about Europe-wide leukaemia rates post Chernobyl?
David
QUOTE
3) Health hazards a greatly exaggerated. The radiation levels are so incredibly low as to almost a non-factor & its other health hazards are also true for all heavy metals including Tungsten.
I don't think they are exaggerated because they also foud plutonium in the remainings of a used DU round. Plutonium is very toxic and makes a lot of radiation. Also there are some reports that state the DU also have berillium, and this a extremely toxic metal used to give hardness to a lot of metal alloys.The most dangerous part od DU rounds is the chemical poison. They are a heavy metal and acoording to that are poisonous. Maybe tungsten too, but I don't know.
QUOTE
As for the health hazards, one of our army's lead toxicologists did put it nicely: If you are at/near a vehicle hit by DU penetrator, health risks of DU are the least problem you have
I believe it was found manyof the "strange diseases" were indeed intoxications from having too close looks on wrecks of enemy equipment, even though such behavior was officially forbidden AFAIK - in a wrecked vehicle, even if it wasn't hit by DU or WHA, there is quite a lot of nasty stuff beginning a buttload of lead from the accumulators and electronics. If the vehicle burned in the meantime, the worse...
I believe it was found manyof the "strange diseases" were indeed intoxications from having too close looks on wrecks of enemy equipment, even though such behavior was officially forbidden AFAIK - in a wrecked vehicle, even if it wasn't hit by DU or WHA, there is quite a lot of nasty stuff beginning a buttload of lead from the accumulators and electronics. If the vehicle burned in the meantime, the worse...
What could he say???? his answer is the logical one..... There is one thing sure many veterans have strange diseases and is necesary to know why the disease appeared.
QUOTE
There was a fire at an RO factory in February 1999. It was in Featherstone, Staffordshire, not Lancashire:
http://www.hpa.nhs.uk/hpa/news/nrpb_archiv...tement_2_99.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3148853.stm is a reference to the Dundrennan site, but as usual for the media is short on facts and long on FUD.
The CR" uses the L30 gun, not an L27. Maybe there was an L27 experimental gun?
The core of your question concerns the infantile leukaemia rates around Dundrennan, which the article associates by proximity of discussion to the "escape" of a DU round as far as cliffs in the Dundrennan area. Presumably an overshoot that fell outside of the designated range. The date of that incident was 1989.
This Hansard entry shows the statistics for Dumfries and Galloway in from 1974 to 1996:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...xt/90225w11.htm
(table about two thirds down the page)
The numbers don't by cursory examination show a significant deviation from the expected values, and are so low that two cases in one year would look like an epidemic, but wouldn't be statistically significant.
It should also be noted that the time period covers the general claims of rises in infantile Leukaemia following the Chernobyl incident.
very interesting!!!!, I supose that Dumfries = Dundrennan, isn't it??.http://www.hpa.nhs.uk/hpa/news/nrpb_archiv...tement_2_99.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3148853.stm is a reference to the Dundrennan site, but as usual for the media is short on facts and long on FUD.
The CR" uses the L30 gun, not an L27. Maybe there was an L27 experimental gun?
The core of your question concerns the infantile leukaemia rates around Dundrennan, which the article associates by proximity of discussion to the "escape" of a DU round as far as cliffs in the Dundrennan area. Presumably an overshoot that fell outside of the designated range. The date of that incident was 1989.
This Hansard entry shows the statistics for Dumfries and Galloway in from 1974 to 1996:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...xt/90225w11.htm
(table about two thirds down the page)
The numbers don't by cursory examination show a significant deviation from the expected values, and are so low that two cases in one year would look like an epidemic, but wouldn't be statistically significant.
It should also be noted that the time period covers the general claims of rises in infantile Leukaemia following the Chernobyl incident.
QUOTE
1. No. But it's possible that there may be official restrictions on DU round use on training ranges in the UK. L27 round production has now ceased.
Maybe!!!QUOTE
2. It's a curate's egg. Some of the facts are likely correct, some are clearly not. The inferences are unsupported by statistical data, and no reputable external sources are cited. Newspapers don't count as reputable citations when formal medical claims are being made.
Probably yes, but in Spain we say: "When the river is noisy is because it carries water" then somehow the DU have something.QUOTE
3. They do the job better than any other round. They represent a classic example of how some risks have to be tolerated to reduce the overall risk to own forces in time of war.
Yes but that for the soldiers in the field no for the civilian who can be ill for the rest of their life. Moreover, the expected life of DU is 4.500 years then the problem is for generations even more if they have Plutonium.QUOTE
. This merits a couple of thousand academic papers and much research money. The general opinion (subject to my misinterpretation) over in the Scientific Forum relates to adiabatic shear which allows a DU penetrator to "self sharpen" when penetrating, rather than forming a "mushroom" head, which seems to be the mode of most other materials, although recent tungsten rounds claim to have reproduced this effect.
Yes I agree.QUOTE
5. If there's a WHO report, then the article doesn't mention it. Citation? Was this report about Europe-wide leukaemia rates post Chernobyl?
No there are no WHO reports that relates the DU rounds with the leukemia. There many reports, UN, Red Cross, WHO that state there are no relation between the use of DU and the strange diseases that many veterans are suffering. but all of them state that investigation should continue and recommend not to use that weapons and if used to clean all the target areas.
Best regards
Mirlo
QUOTE(Mirlo @ Wed 30 May 2007 1246)
The most dangerous part od DU rounds is the chemical poison. They are a heavy metal and acoording to that are poisonous.
Which makes them no different from any other heavy metal. Lead, tungsten, etc. are all poisonous if ingested.
QUOTE
Moreover, the expected life of DU is 4.500 years then the problem is for generations even more if they have Plutonium.
Actually DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. But what that really means is that it is very lightly radioactive. The shorter the half-life, the more radioactive the substance.
Of course it also means that DU will be around for a long time, but so do rocks. That doesn't make rocks a health hazard.
Mirlo
In the past you requested info and photographs of the SANDF Olifant ammo etc, some of which I could n't supply at the time. I can't find the old thread, so decided to post it here.
At last weeks' AAD08 the so-called FS Mk1, FS MK2 and FS MK2improved was shown. It was the first time I have seen the Mk2improved and the members present comfirmed the existance of the Mk3.
Mk1 left, Mk2 right
In the past you requested info and photographs of the SANDF Olifant ammo etc, some of which I could n't supply at the time. I can't find the old thread, so decided to post it here.
At last weeks' AAD08 the so-called FS Mk1, FS MK2 and FS MK2improved was shown. It was the first time I have seen the Mk2improved and the members present comfirmed the existance of the Mk3.
Mk1 left, Mk2 right
SANDF FS Mk2
SANDF FS Mk2 Improved
Round looks like as it was modern 
I bet at least 500 mm penetration on 2 km by NATO standards, have you got any detailed data?
Regards
I bet at least 500 mm penetration on 2 km by NATO standards, have you got any detailed data?Regards
QUOTE(exT70 @ Tue 23 Sep 2008 1114)
Mk1 left, Mk2 right
I deny any and all inference of association with South African politics of any persuasion.
I wasn't there. You can't prove I was there. If you can prove I was there, I didn't do it. You can't prove I did it. If you can prove I did it, it was an accident. You can't prove I did it on purpose. If you can prove I did it on purpose, I was not in my right mind at the time. You can't prove I was in my right mind. ....
-Mk 1
QUOTE(exT70 wrote:)
"At last weeks' AAD08 the so-called FS Mk1, FS MK2 and FS MK2improved was shown. It was the first time I have seen the Mk2improved and the members present comfirmed the existance of the Mk3.
Thanks for posting these great pictures. Were there any data placards that went with them?
By the look of things, The FS Mk1 is the Israeli M111 (DM23 in German nomenclature), which entered service since the late '70s, and became very widespread, with a number of regional variants. The FS Mk2 looks very like the M413 (DM33) of the mid 1980s, while the FS Mk2 Improved is clearly the M426 (DM63) from the late '80s.
What I find odd is that the FS Mk2 has M429 printed on the sabot, which is a designation I have not seen before. It would fall out of chronological sequence (M111/M413/M426), coming after the more advanced M426, but it is clearly the earlier model. Perhaps M429 is a version of the M413 that was modified for local requirements, and got re-designated at a later date?
It would be most interesting to find out what the Mk 3 is like. I haven't been following ammunition as closely as I used to, so I've not heard of any recent Israeli APFSDS developments. Is this the sign of something new? Or could it be from an alternative supplier?
QUOTE(Andrew Jaremkow @ Tue 23 Sep 2008 2320)
Thanks for posting these great pictures. Were there any data placards that went with them?
By the look of things, The FS Mk1 is the Israeli M111 (DM23 in German nomenclature), which entered service since the late '70s, and became very widespread, with a number of regional variants. The FS Mk2 looks very like the M413 (DM33) of the mid 1980s, while the FS Mk2 Improved is clearly the M426 (DM63) from the late '80s.
What I find odd is that the FS Mk2 has M429 printed on the sabot, which is a designation I have not seen before. It would fall out of chronological sequence (M111/M413/M426), coming after the more advanced M426, but it is clearly the earlier model. Perhaps M429 is a version of the M413 that was modified for local requirements, and got re-designated at a later date?
It would be most interesting to find out what the Mk 3 is like. I haven't been following ammunition as closely as I used to, so I've not heard of any recent Israeli APFSDS developments. Is this the sign of something new? Or could it be from an alternative supplier?
By the look of things, The FS Mk1 is the Israeli M111 (DM23 in German nomenclature), which entered service since the late '70s, and became very widespread, with a number of regional variants. The FS Mk2 looks very like the M413 (DM33) of the mid 1980s, while the FS Mk2 Improved is clearly the M426 (DM63) from the late '80s.
What I find odd is that the FS Mk2 has M429 printed on the sabot, which is a designation I have not seen before. It would fall out of chronological sequence (M111/M413/M426), coming after the more advanced M426, but it is clearly the earlier model. Perhaps M429 is a version of the M413 that was modified for local requirements, and got re-designated at a later date?
It would be most interesting to find out what the Mk 3 is like. I haven't been following ammunition as closely as I used to, so I've not heard of any recent Israeli APFSDS developments. Is this the sign of something new? Or could it be from an alternative supplier?
No data placards.
We used Mk1's in the late 80's and early 90's as "carry" rounds, with the Mk2' being scarce during training. Mk2 was at the time ('91/'92) also not too popular and described as being "unstable" after 2000m, which at the time was reportedly being fixed. A Mk3 was then mentioned, but I never saw one. The so-called Mk2Improved seems to be what was referred to during my time "in" (I corps transferred in the meantime, so not up to date any more). The Mk2Improved is a first for me. The Mk3 was mentioned by the attending Off and NCO in our discussion, but am sure the NCO have never seen one. So until I get someone to confirm the Mk3 independantly, it should stay in the realms of "rumour" and "conjecture".
Re: the names/versions, I would hazard a guess that not too much should be read in to that. SA has been "producing" its own round for some time, so designations will be quite different from the "mother" rounds, and SADF designations used to be deliberately vague for its own reasons (usually sanction-busting). Due to the erswhile close SADF/IDF links, I think your designation translations might be spot on.
QUOTE(Andrew Jaremkow @ Tue 23 Sep 2008 2320)
By the look of things, The FS Mk1 is the Israeli M111 (DM23 in German nomenclature), which entered service since the late '70s, and became very widespread, with a number of regional variants. The FS Mk2 looks very like the M413 (DM33) of the mid 1980s, while the FS Mk2 Improved is clearly the M426 (DM63) from the late '80s.
Note the Mk2 Improved has also a CL-3108 designation, in line with Israeli ammo designations. Is this an alternate designation for M426?
QUOTE(Gorka wrote:)
Note the Mk2 Improved has also a CL-3108 designation, in line with Israeli ammo designations. Is this an alternate designation for M426?
Based on this photo I believe it is.
I have a couple of articles from 1987 that reference the CL3108. Apparently it was the subject of US Army foreign weapons systems evaluation trials in 1987, with some consideration for using it as a as an interim upgrade between the M833 and eventual service of the (then) XM900E1, and trials were expected to continue in 1988. The CL3108 was also described in another article as a competitor with the French OFL105G2.
The timing and general design of the M426 would certainly be a match with these articles. I don't have any source directly correlating the two designations, but now that we have this picture, with the CL3108 on an M426 look-alike body, I think it's a pretty safe bet.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.