Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Arms Trades

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    I'm open to correction, but afaik DU isn't used in any infantry anti-tank weaponry. DU is only useful when you have a large gun (MBT guns, etc) to create the large energy requirements for DU rounds to become effective. Infantry anti-tank missiles are almost (entirely? I can't think of any that aren't anyway..) exclusively designed around some form of shaped charge, and they have been since ww2.

    Thats totally aside from the logistical problem of hauling around exceedingly heavy DU arms in the first place.


  • Options
    #63
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,414 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    slack, you are doing yourself a bit of a disservice - if you don't know your opponent, you can't compete against them. Learn about them, be calm and collected and you can beat them.
    Originally posted by Moriarty
    I'm open to correction, but afaik DU isn't used in any infantry anti-tank weaponry. DU is only useful when you have a large gun (MBT guns, etc) to create the large energy requirements for DU rounds to become effective.
    Yeah, thats the basic principle, but many guns of 25-125mm could use the similar concepts.
    Originally posted by Moriarty
    Infantry anti-tank missiles are almost (entirely? I can't think of any that aren't anyway..) exclusively designed around some form of shaped charge, and they have been since ww2.
    It has evolved (top attack instead of face attack, etc.), but yes, thats the basic principle.
    Originally posted by Moriarty
    Thats totally aside from the logistical problem of hauling around exceedingly heavy DU arms in the first place.
    The weight of the DU isn't a particular issue, however it's density means you can maximise pressure on the target (mass/area).


  • Options
    #64
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Originally posted by Victor
    The weight of the DU isn't a particular issue, however it's density means you can maximise pressure on the target (mass/area).

    Uhm, I was talking about the poor sods stuck with carrying around the extra missiles on their back. Normal ones are heavy enough, I can only imagine what a DU one could weigh.


  • Options
    #65
    thejollyrodger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭thejollyrodger


    I was talking about the poor sods stuck with carrying around the extra missiles on their back

    I thought the craic only started when the DU reached the right temperature, i.e when it hit another tank so the fellas shootin were alright:)


  • Options
    #66
    TommyK
    Registered Users Posts: 199 ✭✭TommyK


    Why not just get us one of there babies and be done with it! :D


    Ogonek Report on `21st Century Weapons' -- Plasma Shield
    http://www.fas.org/news/russia/1995/tac95060.htm


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Originally posted by thejollyrodger
    I thought the craic only started when the DU reached the right temperature, i.e when it hit another tank so the fellas shootin were alright:)

    You missed the point. Depleated Uranium is 70% denser than lead - nearing on twice the weight. That's why it's of such use in the armaments industry. Soldiers, like anyone else, can only carry so much weight on their backs. As such, infantry equipment is designed to be as light as practicle so that they can carry more stuff. Making soldiers lugg around DU missiles would be incredibly impracticle.


  • Options
    #68
    thejollyrodger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭thejollyrodger


    I think i am missing the point, isnt those DU shells only for like 105mm, 155mm Artillery , Main Battle 120mm rounds ?

    I have never heard of any DU munitions for the infantry, and if there is, there is bound to be a proper means of deployment, like the guys in a back of Infantry Fighting Veichle or a Helicopter, so like they dont have far to walk when the shootin starts.


  • Options
    #69
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Mainly large calibre shells, yeah. I was just trying to explain to the guy that asked the question above why DU in infantry fired anti-tank weapons would be really impracticle.

    Mind you, NATO snipers were issued with a small amount of DU bullets so that they could take out enemy infantry wearing flak jackets at long range. They were only issued 4/5 each and they had to carry them around in a lead lined box. As you can guess that was a pretty heavy box. The russians did the same. Both have recalled them as of a few years ago, afaik.


  • Options
    #70
    thejollyrodger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭thejollyrodger


    wow, i didnt know that!!

    yeah DU infantry shells are like totally impratical.

    one thing I do know, that that you cant kill a guy with a 12.7mm round, (.5inch for u imperial lovers:P) it the GENEVA convention...

    carrying around a big lead box sucks.


  • Options
    #71
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,414 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Originally posted by thejollyrodger
    I think i am missing the point, isnt those DU shells only for like 105mm, 155mm Artillery , Main Battle 120mm rounds ?
    Artillery rounds don't use DU - it has to be a direct fire weapon.
    Originally posted by Moriarty
    Mind you, NATO snipers were issued with a small amount of DU bullets so that they could take out enemy infantry wearing flak jackets at long range. They were only issued 4/5 each and they had to carry them around in a lead lined box. As you can guess that was a pretty heavy box. The russians did the same. Both have recalled them as of a few years ago, afaik.
    Not sure about that. What ever about radioactivity, uranium is seriously poisonous (you need to wear gloves when handling it). Once the rifle had been fired it would be contaminated by spall from the round.
    Originally posted by thejollyrodger
    one thing I do know, that that you cant kill a guy with a 12.7mm round, (.5inch for u imperial lovers:P) it the GENEVA convention...
    What is the basis of this? Certainly sabot tank rounds (the typical, but not sole use of DU) would be illegal (prefragmented).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Originally posted by Victor
    Not sure about that. What ever about radioactivity, uranium is seriously poisonous (you need to wear gloves when handling it). Once the rifle had been fired it would be contaminated by spall from the round.

    A guy I know in the UK has a box of them in his basement. :) He collects all sorts of military stuff. A quick google digs [url=http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:BGgWUZbugVkJ:www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol4/no1/pdf/v4n1-p41-46_e.pdf+sniper+depleted+uranium&hl=en&lr=lang_en[/url]this[/url] (search for '.50') up, saying that US troops had .50 cal and 7.62mm DU rounds in active service in Kosovo.


  • Options
    #73
    thejollyrodger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭thejollyrodger


    What is the basis of this? Certainly sabot tank rounds (the typical, but not sole use of DU) would be illegal (prefragmented).

    Its what like I know about the topic, you can only take out a viechle or like a Lightly armoured veichle with a 12.7mm round.

    It would probably rip you apart into 2 parts:O

    thats what they say anyway, but i reckon they would be blasting away with the 12.7mm at anything that moves once the crazy shootin starts:D


Advertisement