Toxic Depleted Uranium Rounds... for Brooks

[robert arndt]

http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html

It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage with
their tungsten rounds:)
Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
"partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...

Rob

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
>
> It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage with
> their tungsten rounds:)

Not really. The sintered-tungsten process just isn't as good.

> Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
> At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
> "partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...

....because Rheinmetall invented a sintered-tungsten round that, while
not as good as a DU penetrator, is bought by the German armed forces to
prop up their business for exports.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
>
> It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage with
> their tungsten rounds:)
> Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
> At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
> "partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...

LOL....

How about instead of using a radical leftist anti-war site with a political
agenda as a source, we use a scientific one?

Ok then:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm

A few pertinant quotes, in case some people don't want to read the entire
article:
"The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for the
Department of Health and Human Services estimates there are an average of 4
tons of uranium in the top foot of soil in every square mile of land. A
heavy metal similar to tungsten and lead, uranium occurs in soils in typical
concentrations of a few parts per million (equivalent to about half a
teaspoon of uranium in a typical 8-cubic yard dump truck-load of dirt)."

"The Department of Energy (DOE) recently reported that the DU it provided to
DoD for manufacturing armor plates and munitions may contain trace levels (a
few parts per billion ) of contaminants including neptunium, plutonium,
americium, technitium-99 and uranium-236. From a radiological perspective,
these contaminants in DU add less than one percent to the radioactivity of
DU itself."

"The major health concerns about DU relate to its chemical properties as a
heavy metal rather than to its radioactivity, which is very low. As with all
chemicals, the hazard depends mainly upon the amount taken into the body.
Medical science recognizes that uranium at high doses can cause kidney
damage. However, those levels are far above levels soldiers would have
encountered in the Gulf or the Balkans."

"Most soldiers and civilians will not be exposed to dangerous levels of
depleted uranium."

"...in certain circumstances the exposures may be high and there would be a
risk of heavy metal poisoning that could lead to long-term kidney damage for
a few soldiers, as well as the increased risk of lung cancer. A small number
of soldiers and civilians might suffer kidney damage from depleted uranium
if substantial amounts are breathed in, or swallowed in contaminated soil
and water."

"Because depleted uranium emits primarily alpha radiation, it is not
considered a serious external radiation hazard. The depleted uranium in
armor and rounds is covered, further reducing the radiation dose. When
breathed or eaten, small amounts of depleted uranium are carried in the
blood to body tissues and organs; much the same as the more radioactive
natural uranium. Despite this, no radiological health effects are expected
because the radioactivity of uranium and depleted uranium are so low."

Hmmm.... so it seems that the actual danger from DU is not due to it's
'radioactivity' as some hysterical critics would like us to believe, but
rather from it's properties as a heavy metal (which in and of itself is not
much more than any other heavy metal one might encounter on the battlefield,
including tungsten carbide), and then only by directly ingesting an
abnormally large amount of the stuff.

Perhaps we should make our tank rounds out of wood?

And one more quote:

"In military applications, when alloyed, Depleted Uranium is ideal for use
in armor penetrators. These solid metal projectiles have the speed, mass and
physical properties to perform exceptionally well against armored targets.
DU provides a substantial performance advantage, well above other competing
materials. This allows DU penetrators to defeat an armored target at a
significantly greater distance. Also, DU's density and physical properties
make it ideal for use as armor plate. DU has been used in weapon systems for
many years in both applications."

Apparantly, the Germans can do nowhere near the amount of damage with their
tungsten rounds. Oh and here's another good one:

"US forces also use DU to enhance their tanks' armor protection. In one
noteworthy incident, an M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, its thick steel armor
reinforced by a layer of DU sandwiched between two layers of steel, rebuffed
a close-in attack by three of Iraq's T-72 tanks. After deflecting three hits
from Iraq's tanks, the Abrams' crew dispatched the T-72s with a single DU
round to each of the three Iraqi tanks."

Yep, I think that we'll keep our DU right where it is.

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
>
> It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage with
> their tungsten rounds:)
> Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
> At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
> "partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...

You are proving yourself more stupid every time you post--a major
accomplishment, being as you already had the stupidity bar set rather
high... The DU I was referring to is used in the *armor composition* (it
improves resistance to KE projectiles) of the later M1 series tanks, not
that which is in the APDS-FS rounds. Idiot.

Brooks
>
> Rob

[Ragnar]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
>
> It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage with
> their tungsten rounds:)

Actually, they can't. DU is more efficient than tungsten at penetrating
modern armor. Even with a velocity advantage using the L55 gun, tungsten
doesn't match up.

> Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.

Yes, I'm sure it will. Just not as efficiently as DU.

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
>
> It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage with
> their tungsten rounds:)
> Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
> At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
> "partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...
>
> Rob

Unless the troops in question are shaving slivers
of the penetrator and eating them its not
poisoning those in the US military either.

Uranium is a heavy metal similar in toxicity
to lead and cadmium and is used in
glassmaking and pottery for colouring.

Keith

[Matt Wiser]

Well done, Thomas. I agree completely. Mention uranium (depleted or otherwise)
to the loony left and they go ballistic. Seems some folks are more concerned
with the casualties inflicted on the enemy than the casualties inflicted
on us....loyalty questions, anyone?






"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote:
>
>"robert arndt" > wrote in
>message
m...
>> http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
>>
>> It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do
>just as much damage with
>> their tungsten rounds:)
>> Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo
>will ruin your day.
>> At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning
>its own troops by using
>> "partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...
>
>LOL....
>
>How about instead of using a radical leftist
>anti-war site with a political
>agenda as a source, we use a scientific one?
>
>Ok then:
>
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm
>
>A few pertinant quotes, in case some people
>don't want to read the entire
>article:
>"The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
>Registry (ATSDR) for the
>Department of Health and Human Services estimates
>there are an average of 4
>tons of uranium in the top foot of soil in every
>square mile of land. A
>heavy metal similar to tungsten and lead, uranium
>occurs in soils in typical
>concentrations of a few parts per million (equivalent
>to about half a
>teaspoon of uranium in a typical 8-cubic yard
>dump truck-load of dirt)."
>
>"The Department of Energy (DOE) recently reported
>that the DU it provided to
>DoD for manufacturing armor plates and munitions
>may contain trace levels (a
>few parts per billion ) of contaminants including
>neptunium, plutonium,
>americium, technitium-99 and uranium-236. From
>a radiological perspective,
>these contaminants in DU add less than one percent
>to the radioactivity of
>DU itself."
>
>"The major health concerns about DU relate to
>its chemical properties as a
>heavy metal rather than to its radioactivity,
>which is very low. As with all
>chemicals, the hazard depends mainly upon the
>amount taken into the body.
>Medical science recognizes that uranium at high
>doses can cause kidney
>damage. However, those levels are far above
>levels soldiers would have
>encountered in the Gulf or the Balkans."
>
>"Most soldiers and civilians will not be exposed
>to dangerous levels of
>depleted uranium."
>
>"...in certain circumstances the exposures may
>be high and there would be a
>risk of heavy metal poisoning that could lead
>to long-term kidney damage for
>a few soldiers, as well as the increased risk
>of lung cancer. A small number
>of soldiers and civilians might suffer kidney
>damage from depleted uranium
>if substantial amounts are breathed in, or swallowed
>in contaminated soil
>and water."
>
>"Because depleted uranium emits primarily alpha
>radiation, it is not
>considered a serious external radiation hazard.
>The depleted uranium in
>armor and rounds is covered, further reducing
>the radiation dose. When
>breathed or eaten, small amounts of depleted
>uranium are carried in the
>blood to body tissues and organs; much the same
>as the more radioactive
>natural uranium. Despite this, no radiological
>health effects are expected
>because the radioactivity of uranium and depleted
>uranium are so low."
>
>Hmmm.... so it seems that the actual danger
>from DU is not due to it's
>'radioactivity' as some hysterical critics would
>like us to believe, but
>rather from it's properties as a heavy metal
>(which in and of itself is not
>much more than any other heavy metal one might
>encounter on the battlefield,
>including tungsten carbide), and then only by
>directly ingesting an
>abnormally large amount of the stuff.
>
>Perhaps we should make our tank rounds out of
>wood?
>
>And one more quote:
>
>"In military applications, when alloyed, Depleted
>Uranium is ideal for use
>in armor penetrators. These solid metal projectiles
>have the speed, mass and
>physical properties to perform exceptionally
>well against armored targets.
>DU provides a substantial performance advantage,
>well above other competing
>materials. This allows DU penetrators to defeat
>an armored target at a
>significantly greater distance. Also, DU's density
>and physical properties
>make it ideal for use as armor plate. DU has
>been used in weapon systems for
>many years in both applications."
>
>Apparantly, the Germans can do nowhere near
>the amount of damage with their
>tungsten rounds. Oh and here's another good
>one:
>
>"US forces also use DU to enhance their tanks'
>armor protection. In one
>noteworthy incident, an M1A1 Abrams Main Battle
>Tank, its thick steel armor
>reinforced by a layer of DU sandwiched between
>two layers of steel, rebuffed
>a close-in attack by three of Iraq's T-72 tanks.
>After deflecting three hits
>from Iraq's tanks, the Abrams' crew dispatched
>the T-72s with a single DU
>round to each of the three Iraqi tanks."
>
>Yep, I think that we'll keep our DU right where
>it is.
>
>
>
>
>
>


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"Ragnar" > wrote:
>
>"robert arndt" > wrote in
>message
m...
>> http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
>>
>> It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do
>just as much damage with
>> their tungsten rounds:)
>
>Actually, they can't. DU is more efficient
>than tungsten at penetrating
>modern armor. Even with a velocity advantage
>using the L55 gun, tungsten
>doesn't match up.
>
>> Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo
>will ruin your day.
>
>Yes, I'm sure it will. Just not as efficiently
>as DU.
>
>
>
Correct: two or three rounds of tungsten to do the job of one DU round.


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Tamas Feher]

Hello,

>Uranium is a heavy metal similar in toxicity
>to lead and cadmium and is used in
>glassmaking and pottery for colouring.

Uranium is unique, because it burns at high temperatures and turns into
a smoke-like very fine dust. This dust goes deep into your lungs while
you breathe and causes cancer due to a combination of radiation and
chemical toxicity.

This does not happen with tungsten (wolfram) or lead.

Question: is there any shooting range inside the CONUS with live DU
pratice?

Regards: Tamas Feher.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
...
> Hello,
>
> >Uranium is a heavy metal similar in toxicity
> >to lead and cadmium and is used in
> >glassmaking and pottery for colouring.
>
> Uranium is unique, because it burns at high temperatures and turns into
> a smoke-like very fine dust. This dust goes deep into your lungs while
> you breathe and causes cancer due to a combination of radiation and
> chemical toxicity.

That is completely and totally untrue for a number of reasons.

First of all, most of this 'dust' you're talking about self-ignites on
contact with the air.

Second of all, ALL the physiological harm one may experience from DU is
related to it's properties as a heavy metal, NOT it's alleged
'radioactivity'. In reality, it is less radioactive than dirt.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm


> This does not happen with tungsten (wolfram) or lead.

They are heavy metals, so they pose the exact same risk as DU.


> Question: is there any shooting range inside the CONUS with live DU
> pratice?

All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using heavy-metals in
all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was never used as a
training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1 sabot
practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live round
would.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
...
> Hello,
>
> >Uranium is a heavy metal similar in toxicity
> >to lead and cadmium and is used in
> >glassmaking and pottery for colouring.
>
> Uranium is unique, because it burns at high temperatures and turns into
> a smoke-like very fine dust.

This is not unique

> This dust goes deep into your lungs while
> you breathe and causes cancer due to a combination of radiation and
> chemical toxicity.
>

In fact cancer due to Uranium ingestion requires heavy exposures
the IDLH of Uranium is 10 mg /m3 , about the same as Cadmium and
Nickel.


>
> This does not happen with tungsten (wolfram) or lead.
>

Cadmium with similar toxicity to uranium is also pyrophoric
when finely divided as are many metals. Cadmium is a
known carcinogen

> Question: is there any shooting range inside the CONUS with live DU
> pratice?
>
> Regards: Tamas Feher.
>

Yes, Aberdeen proving grounds and Yuma at a minimum.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
...
> Hello,
>
> >Uranium is a heavy metal similar in toxicity
> >to lead and cadmium and is used in
> >glassmaking and pottery for colouring.
>
> Uranium is unique, because it burns at high temperatures and turns into
> a smoke-like very fine dust.

This is not unique

> This dust goes deep into your lungs while
> you breathe and causes cancer due to a combination of radiation and
> chemical toxicity.
>

In fact cancer due to Uranium ingestion requires heavy exposures
the IDLH of Uranium is 10 mg /m3 , about the same as Cadmium and
Nickel.


>
> This does not happen with tungsten (wolfram) or lead.
>

Cadmium with similar toxicity to uranium is also pyrophoric
when finely divided as are many metals. Cadmium is a
known carcinogen

> Question: is there any shooting range inside the CONUS with live DU
> pratice?
>
> Regards: Tamas Feher.
>

Yes, Aberdeen proving grounds and Yuma at a minimum.

Keith

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 7 May 2004 16:30:54 +0200, "Tamas Feher" > wrote:

>Hello,
>
>>Uranium is a heavy metal similar in toxicity
>>to lead and cadmium and is used in
>>glassmaking and pottery for colouring.
>
>Uranium is unique, because it burns at high temperatures and turns into
>a smoke-like very fine dust. This dust goes deep into your lungs while
>you breathe and causes cancer due to a combination of radiation and
>chemical toxicity.
>
>This does not happen with tungsten (wolfram) or lead.
>
>Question: is there any shooting range inside the CONUS with live DU
>pratice?
>
>Regards: Tamas Feher.
>
Do some research. All metals can burn, most at very high temps. There
is no, rpt no, research that finds that DU causes cancer.

Al Minyard

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...

<snip>

>
> All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using heavy-metals
in
> all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was never used as
a
> training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1 sabot
> practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live round
> would.

Not quite. As you noted, lead is also a "heavy metal", and it is still used
in small arms rounds that are fired during training, albeit in fully
jacketed form.

Brooks

>
>
>

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using heavy-metals
> in
> > all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was never used
as
> a
> > training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1 sabot
> > practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live round
> > would.
>
> Not quite. As you noted, lead is also a "heavy metal", and it is still
used
> in small arms rounds that are fired during training, albeit in fully
> jacketed form.

I actually read recently that all NATO small arms rounds will no longer be
using lead in training, and eventually active service; or at least that it
was being phased out. The so-called 'green bullet'; it uses recycled
tungsten tin or nylon jacketed in copper rather than lead.

This isn't the original artcle that I read, but it came up on a search I
just did and has some good info:

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/GreenBullets/GreenBullets.htm

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using
heavy-metals
> > in
> > > all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was never used
> as
> > a
> > > training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1 sabot
> > > practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live round
> > > would.
> >
> > Not quite. As you noted, lead is also a "heavy metal", and it is still
> used
> > in small arms rounds that are fired during training, albeit in fully
> > jacketed form.
>
> I actually read recently that all NATO small arms rounds will no longer be
> using lead in training, and eventually active service; or at least that it
> was being phased out. The so-called 'green bullet'; it uses recycled
> tungsten tin or nylon jacketed in copper rather than lead.

Yep, they have been leaning that way--but last I knew the older rounds are
still being fired. Note that most of the ranges mentioned as being closed
were the indoor variety (just about every reserve/Guard armory had an indoor
range, the vast majority of which were closed and underwent remediation to
handle the lead threat). I believe they already have the tungsten penetrator
in service for the 5.56mm (IIRC it is supposed to have better penetration
capability than the regular FMJ), but the 9mm are still firing FMJ's, as are
I believe most of the 7.62mm and .50 cal (that is a LOT of ammo to
replace...). I'd also be surprised if the military double-ought buckshot
loads for the 12 ga shotguns are anything other than lead...

Brooks

>
> This isn't the original artcle that I read, but it came up on a search I
> just did and has some good info:
>
> http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/GreenBullets/GreenBullets.htm
>
>

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Thomas J. Paladino
Jr." > wrote:

snipped
(Knew most of this)

> All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using heavy-metals in
> all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was never used as a
> training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1 sabot
> practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live round
> would.

Interesting. As a re-loader, I'm curious how a steel core replicates the
sectional density and ballistic coefficient of DU and therefore the ballistics
of the round? After all, DU is about 2.33 times the density of steel (I used
values for Maraging steel, but 300 series is the same, and higher than
alloy steels), so to keep the same mass the round must be bigger,
but that would degrade it's areodynamics.
Can you elucidate? I don't understand.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Kevin Brooks]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Thomas J. Paladino
> Jr." > wrote:
>
> snipped
> (Knew most of this)
>
> > All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using heavy-metals
in
> > all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was never used
as a
> > training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1 sabot
> > practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live round
> > would.
>
> Interesting. As a re-loader, I'm curious how a steel core replicates the
> sectional density and ballistic coefficient of DU and therefore the
ballistics
> of the round? After all, DU is about 2.33 times the density of steel (I
used
> values for Maraging steel, but 300 series is the same, and higher than
> alloy steels), so to keep the same mass the round must be bigger,
> but that would degrade it's areodynamics.
> Can you elucidate? I don't understand.

It does not have to. When firing the training rounds from the M1A1, the
ballistic computer is set for the APDS training round, just as it is set
differently for the HEAT round vice the DU APDS-FS--the computer adjusts the
aim point accordingly.

Brooks

>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:57:28 -0700, (Harry Andreas) wrote:

>In article >, "Thomas J. Paladino
>Jr." > wrote:
>
>snipped
>(Knew most of this)
>
>> All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using heavy-metals in
>> all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was never used as a
>> training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1 sabot
>> practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live round
>> would.
>
>Interesting. As a re-loader, I'm curious how a steel core replicates the
>sectional density and ballistic coefficient of DU and therefore the ballistics
>of the round? After all, DU is about 2.33 times the density of steel (I used
>values for Maraging steel, but 300 series is the same, and higher than
>alloy steels), so to keep the same mass the round must be bigger,
>but that would degrade it's areodynamics.
>Can you elucidate? I don't understand.

Not to mention that FMJ rounds contain (drum roll please) LEAD.
Lead is a "heavy metal"!!!!!!

Al Minyard

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 5 May 2004 11:24:25 -0700,
robert arndt attempted to say .....

> http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
>
> It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage with
> their tungsten rounds:)
> Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
> At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
> "partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...
>

Hmmm,
isn't tungsten considered a heavy metal ?

I don't think I'll be jumping in any damaged tanks after a strike of your
"uber"round without the proper protective measures.

I'm not fond of heavy metal poisoning...


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Thomas J. Paladino
> > Jr." > wrote:
> >
> > snipped
> > (Knew most of this)
> >
> > > All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using heavy-metals
> in
> > > all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was never used
> as a
> > > training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1 sabot
> > > practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live round
> > > would.
> >
> > Interesting. As a re-loader, I'm curious how a steel core replicates the
> > sectional density and ballistic coefficient of DU and therefore the
> ballistics
> > of the round? After all, DU is about 2.33 times the density of steel (I
> used
> > values for Maraging steel, but 300 series is the same, and higher than
> > alloy steels), so to keep the same mass the round must be bigger,
> > but that would degrade it's areodynamics.
> > Can you elucidate? I don't understand.
>
> It does not have to. When firing the training rounds from the M1A1, the
> ballistic computer is set for the APDS training round, just as it is set
> differently for the HEAT round vice the DU APDS-FS--the computer adjusts the
> aim point accordingly.

Just so.

Maybe I didn't snip enough, but he said, "exactly as the live round would."
That's what I was questioning.

Frankly, I would expect a change in ballistic performance, culminating
in an adjustment of the sights.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Kevin Brooks]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Thomas J.
Paladino
> > > Jr." > wrote:
> > >
> > > snipped
> > > (Knew most of this)
> > >
> > > > All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using
heavy-metals
> > in
> > > > all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was never
used
> > as a
> > > > training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1
sabot
> > > > practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live
round
> > > > would.
> > >
> > > Interesting. As a re-loader, I'm curious how a steel core replicates
the
> > > sectional density and ballistic coefficient of DU and therefore the
> > ballistics
> > > of the round? After all, DU is about 2.33 times the density of steel
(I
> > used
> > > values for Maraging steel, but 300 series is the same, and higher than
> > > alloy steels), so to keep the same mass the round must be bigger,
> > > but that would degrade it's areodynamics.
> > > Can you elucidate? I don't understand.
> >
> > It does not have to. When firing the training rounds from the M1A1, the
> > ballistic computer is set for the APDS training round, just as it is set
> > differently for the HEAT round vice the DU APDS-FS--the computer adjusts
the
> > aim point accordingly.
>
> Just so.
>
> Maybe I didn't snip enough, but he said, "exactly as the live round
would."
> That's what I was questioning.
>
> Frankly, I would expect a change in ballistic performance, culminating
> in an adjustment of the sights.

You are probably right, hence the different settings of the ballistic
computer. I guess you could develop a matching training round if you really
wanted to; the lighter composition of the dart could be compensated for by
changing the diameter, length, etc. I don't know why anyone would want to,
though, since the training value is still there with the dissimilar rounds
as long as the ballistic computer is correcting for the differences, meaning
no perceived difference to the gunner.

Brooks

>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

[Paul F Austin]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, "Thomas J.
> Paladino
> > > > Jr." > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > snipped
> > > > (Knew most of this)
> > > >
> > > > > All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using
> heavy-metals
> > > in
> > > > > all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was never
> used
> > > as a
> > > > > training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1
> sabot
> > > > > practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live
> round
> > > > > would.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting. As a re-loader, I'm curious how a steel core replicates
> the
> > > > sectional density and ballistic coefficient of DU and therefore the
> > > ballistics
> > > > of the round? After all, DU is about 2.33 times the density of steel
> (I
> > > used
> > > > values for Maraging steel, but 300 series is the same, and higher
than
> > > > alloy steels), so to keep the same mass the round must be bigger,
> > > > but that would degrade it's areodynamics.
> > > > Can you elucidate? I don't understand.
> > >
> > > It does not have to. When firing the training rounds from the M1A1,
the
> > > ballistic computer is set for the APDS training round, just as it is
set
> > > differently for the HEAT round vice the DU APDS-FS--the computer
adjusts
> the
> > > aim point accordingly.
> >
> > Just so.
> >
> > Maybe I didn't snip enough, but he said, "exactly as the live round
> would."
> > That's what I was questioning.
> >
> > Frankly, I would expect a change in ballistic performance, culminating
> > in an adjustment of the sights.
>
> You are probably right, hence the different settings of the ballistic
> computer. I guess you could develop a matching training round if you
really
> wanted to; the lighter composition of the dart could be compensated for by
> changing the diameter, length, etc. I don't know why anyone would want
to,
> though, since the training value is still there with the dissimilar rounds
> as long as the ballistic computer is correcting for the differences,
meaning
> no perceived difference to the gunner.

I've read that the training darts include a pyrotechnic that deploys drag
features after about 2Km of flight so that smaller ranges can be used. Is
there anything to that?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >, "Thomas J.
> > Paladino
> > > > > Jr." > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > snipped
> > > > > (Knew most of this)
> > > > >
> > > > > > All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using
> > heavy-metals
> > > > in
> > > > > > all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was
never
> > used
> > > > as a
> > > > > > training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1
> > sabot
> > > > > > practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live
> > round
> > > > > > would.
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting. As a re-loader, I'm curious how a steel core
replicates
> > the
> > > > > sectional density and ballistic coefficient of DU and therefore
the
> > > > ballistics
> > > > > of the round? After all, DU is about 2.33 times the density of
steel
> > (I
> > > > used
> > > > > values for Maraging steel, but 300 series is the same, and higher
> than
> > > > > alloy steels), so to keep the same mass the round must be bigger,
> > > > > but that would degrade it's areodynamics.
> > > > > Can you elucidate? I don't understand.
> > > >
> > > > It does not have to. When firing the training rounds from the M1A1,
> the
> > > > ballistic computer is set for the APDS training round, just as it is
> set
> > > > differently for the HEAT round vice the DU APDS-FS--the computer
> adjusts
> > the
> > > > aim point accordingly.
> > >
> > > Just so.
> > >
> > > Maybe I didn't snip enough, but he said, "exactly as the live round
> > would."
> > > That's what I was questioning.
> > >
> > > Frankly, I would expect a change in ballistic performance, culminating
> > > in an adjustment of the sights.
> >
> > You are probably right, hence the different settings of the ballistic
> > computer. I guess you could develop a matching training round if you
> really
> > wanted to; the lighter composition of the dart could be compensated for
by
> > changing the diameter, length, etc. I don't know why anyone would want
> to,
> > though, since the training value is still there with the dissimilar
rounds
> > as long as the ballistic computer is correcting for the differences,
> meaning
> > no perceived difference to the gunner.
>
> I've read that the training darts include a pyrotechnic that deploys drag
> features after about 2Km of flight so that smaller ranges can be used. Is
> there anything to that?

You have gone well beyond my limited knowledge of the subject with that one.
I'd suspect it is not correct, though, because you'd still have to set up
your range safety-fan to accomodate maximum range of the projectile (telling
farmer Joe his cow got killed by a dart that departed the range, but that's
no big problemo, 'cause the dart was *supposed* to deploy a pyro charge...is
not going to cut it). I do recal one stateside range (At FT Indiantown Gap,
PA, IIRC) that had a problem with training sabot rounds departing the range
(and the post limits), causing them to shut down that use.

Brooks

>
>

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Mon, 10 May 2004 19:13:59 -0400,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....

>
> "Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >, "Thomas J.
> > > Paladino
> > > > > > Jr." > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > snipped
> > > > > > (Knew most of this)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using
> > > heavy-metals
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was
> never
> > > used
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > > training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1
> > > sabot
> > > > > > > practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live
> > > round
> > > > > > > would.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interesting. As a re-loader, I'm curious how a steel core
> replicates
> > > the
> > > > > > sectional density and ballistic coefficient of DU and therefore
> the
> > > > > ballistics
> > > > > > of the round? After all, DU is about 2.33 times the density of
> steel
> > > (I
> > > > > used
> > > > > > values for Maraging steel, but 300 series is the same, and higher
> > than
> > > > > > alloy steels), so to keep the same mass the round must be bigger,
> > > > > > but that would degrade it's areodynamics.
> > > > > > Can you elucidate? I don't understand.
> > > > >
> > > > > It does not have to. When firing the training rounds from the M1A1,
> > the
> > > > > ballistic computer is set for the APDS training round, just as it is
> > set
> > > > > differently for the HEAT round vice the DU APDS-FS--the computer
> > adjusts
> > > the
> > > > > aim point accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Just so.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I didn't snip enough, but he said, "exactly as the live round
> > > would."
> > > > That's what I was questioning.
> > > >
> > > > Frankly, I would expect a change in ballistic performance, culminating
> > > > in an adjustment of the sights.
> > >
> > > You are probably right, hence the different settings of the ballistic
> > > computer. I guess you could develop a matching training round if you
> > really
> > > wanted to; the lighter composition of the dart could be compensated for
> by
> > > changing the diameter, length, etc. I don't know why anyone would want
> > to,
> > > though, since the training value is still there with the dissimilar
> rounds
> > > as long as the ballistic computer is correcting for the differences,
> > meaning
> > > no perceived difference to the gunner.
> >
> > I've read that the training darts include a pyrotechnic that deploys drag
> > features after about 2Km of flight so that smaller ranges can be used. Is
> > there anything to that?
>
> You have gone well beyond my limited knowledge of the subject with that one.
> I'd suspect it is not correct, though, because you'd still have to set up
> your range safety-fan to accomodate maximum range of the projectile (telling
> farmer Joe his cow got killed by a dart that departed the range, but that's
> no big problemo, 'cause the dart was *supposed* to deploy a pyro charge...is
> not going to cut it). I do recal one stateside range (At FT Indiantown Gap,
> PA, IIRC) that had a problem with training sabot rounds departing the range
> (and the post limits), causing them to shut down that use.

I don't believe they do.
But my experiance is with a range that was 20+ KM across.
The only time we had problems was dopy gunners getting outside the range
fan.

That training round makes an interesting sound as it passes overhead.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >, "Thomas J.
> > Paladino
> > > > > Jr." > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > snipped
> > > > > (Knew most of this)
> > > > >
> > > > > > All shooting ranges in the US (and NATO) have stopped using
> > heavy-metals
> > > > in
> > > > > > all of their training rounds (including small arms). DU was
never
> > used
> > > > as a
> > > > > > training round to begin with because it is too valuable. The M1
> > sabot
> > > > > > practice round uses a steel core and behaves exactly as the live
> > round
> > > > > > would.
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting. As a re-loader, I'm curious how a steel core
replicates
> > the
> > > > > sectional density and ballistic coefficient of DU and therefore
the
> > > > ballistics
> > > > > of the round? After all, DU is about 2.33 times the density of
steel
> > (I
> > > > used
> > > > > values for Maraging steel, but 300 series is the same, and higher
> than
> > > > > alloy steels), so to keep the same mass the round must be bigger,
> > > > > but that would degrade it's areodynamics.
> > > > > Can you elucidate? I don't understand.
> > > >
> > > > It does not have to. When firing the training rounds from the M1A1,
> the
> > > > ballistic computer is set for the APDS training round, just as it is
> set
> > > > differently for the HEAT round vice the DU APDS-FS--the computer
> adjusts
> > the
> > > > aim point accordingly.
> > >
> > > Just so.
> > >
> > > Maybe I didn't snip enough, but he said, "exactly as the live round
> > would."
> > > That's what I was questioning.
> > >
> > > Frankly, I would expect a change in ballistic performance, culminating
> > > in an adjustment of the sights.
> >
> > You are probably right, hence the different settings of the ballistic
> > computer. I guess you could develop a matching training round if you
> really
> > wanted to; the lighter composition of the dart could be compensated for
by
> > changing the diameter, length, etc. I don't know why anyone would want
> to,
> > though, since the training value is still there with the dissimilar
rounds
> > as long as the ballistic computer is correcting for the differences,
> meaning
> > no perceived difference to the gunner.
>
> I've read that the training darts include a pyrotechnic that deploys drag
> features after about 2Km of flight so that smaller ranges can be used. Is
> there anything to that?
>

Yes, the sabot practice round is indeed range-limited, however not through a
pyrotechnic (as far as I know).

The M865/E2 is the current sabot training round, and it uses a slotted tail
cone instead of tail fins on the projectile in order to limit its range.
Performance-wise, the round itself is 'functionally indistinguishable' from
the live round, in that the round weighs, looks and feels the same (for the
loader) as the live round, and it will fire and travel the same as the live
round as well (for the gunner). The only difference from the crews point of
view is the range. Beyond that, they work with the training round in exactly
the same manner as they would a real one. The M1 computer systems will
compensate automatically for any ballistic differences between the two
rounds, so the crew will not see any major difference while training.

More info on the subject:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m865.htm

[John Keeney]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I've read that the training darts include a pyrotechnic that deploys drag
> features after about 2Km of flight so that smaller ranges can be used. Is
> there anything to that?

I can't say for sure, but it seems unlikely.
The ones I've seen seemed to be very flat waaay out there.

[The Enlightenment]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> m...
> > http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
> >
> > It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage
with
> > their tungsten rounds:)
> > Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
> > At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
> > "partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...
>
> LOL....
>
> How about instead of using a radical leftist anti-war site with a
political
> agenda as a source, we use a scientific one?
>
> Ok then:
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm
>
SNIP cuts from above URLs

>
> "US forces also use DU to enhance their tanks' armor protection. In
one
> noteworthy incident, an M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, its thick
steel armor
> reinforced by a layer of DU sandwiched between two layers of steel,
rebuffed
> a close-in attack by three of Iraq's T-72 tanks. After deflecting
three hits
> from Iraq's tanks, the Abrams' crew dispatched the T-72s with a
single DU
> round to each of the three Iraqi tanks."
>
> Yep, I think that we'll keep our DU right where it is.

I believe the M1A2 has dropped the DU armour in favour of Chobham
style armour.

[The Enlightenment]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on 5 May 2004 11:24:25 -0700,
> robert arndt attempted to say .....
>
> > http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
> >
> > It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage
with
> > their tungsten rounds:)
> > Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
> > At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
> > "partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...
> >
>
> Hmmm,
> isn't tungsten considered a heavy metal ?
>
> I don't think I'll be jumping in any damaged tanks after a strike of
your
> "uber"round without the proper protective measures.
>
> I'm not fond of heavy metal poisoning...

Not all heavy metals are equaly dangerous. Silver is highly toxic but
doesn't concentrat in tissues which is why it has antiseptic
properties. I haven't bothered checking in regards to tungsten.

Heavy metals are generaly nasty for people. It is possible to use
chelating substances to remove some. Selenium is chelating (don't
overdose on it) and believe it or not a modified form of chelating
citrus pectin sold by life extension foundation http://www.lef.org

Much of the heavy metal contamination such as mercury and lead comes
from coal and heavy bunker oil. It concentrates in the food chain
especialy fish and althougt it may spare a mature male it can wreak
havoc with an embroyo and its rapidly dividing cells or possibly screw
with sensitive parts of the body, sperm or egg cells etc.

We need to keep this stuff away from our women and children. After
all what is war for but them.

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> I believe the M1A2 has dropped the DU armour in favour of Chobham
> style armour.
>
>

And what exactly do you think is used in Chobham armour ?

Hint: its generally believed to be made of layers
of ceramic and some hard heavy metal.

Keith

[Kevin Brooks]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
> > >
> > > It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage
> with
> > > their tungsten rounds:)
> > > Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
> > > At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
> > > "partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...
> >
> > LOL....
> >
> > How about instead of using a radical leftist anti-war site with a
> political
> > agenda as a source, we use a scientific one?
> >
> > Ok then:
> >
> > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm
> >
> SNIP cuts from above URLs
>
> >
> > "US forces also use DU to enhance their tanks' armor protection. In
> one
> > noteworthy incident, an M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, its thick
> steel armor
> > reinforced by a layer of DU sandwiched between two layers of steel,
> rebuffed
> > a close-in attack by three of Iraq's T-72 tanks. After deflecting
> three hits
> > from Iraq's tanks, the Abrams' crew dispatched the T-72s with a
> single DU
> > round to each of the three Iraqi tanks."
> >
> > Yep, I think that we'll keep our DU right where it is.
>
> I believe the M1A2 has dropped the DU armour in favour of Chobham
> style armour.

Eh? The *original* M1 used composite armor (as you say, "Chobham style").
The M1A1 HA variant (or block II M1A1) introduced the DU into the mix.
M1A2's are a bit heavier than even the M1A1HA, so it would appear the DU
remains in the mix. There is a mention that the export version of the M1A2
(which would be new build) does not have the DU, but it is kind of hard to
tell for sure, as the exact armor composition is still classified.

Brooks

>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > I believe the M1A2 has dropped the DU armour in favour of Chobham
> > style armour.
> >
> >
>
> And what exactly do you think is used in Chobham armour ?
>
> Hint: its generally believed to be made of layers
> of ceramic and some hard heavy metal.

Not originally, from what I have read. IIRC the original composition was
reportedly steel with a ceramic layer (or layers), with the DU being added
later by the US (I don't recall its being used by the Challenger II?).

Brooks

>
> Keith
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > on 5 May 2004 11:24:25 -0700,
> > robert arndt attempted to say .....
> >
> > > http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
> > >
> > > It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage
> with
> > > their tungsten rounds:)
> > > Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
> > > At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
> > > "partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...
> > >
> >
> > Hmmm,
> > isn't tungsten considered a heavy metal ?
> >
> > I don't think I'll be jumping in any damaged tanks after a strike of
> your
> > "uber"round without the proper protective measures.
> >
> > I'm not fond of heavy metal poisoning...
>
> Not all heavy metals are equaly dangerous. Silver is highly toxic but
> doesn't concentrat in tissues which is why it has antiseptic
> properties. I haven't bothered checking in regards to tungsten.
>
> Heavy metals are generaly nasty for people. It is possible to use
> chelating substances to remove some. Selenium is chelating (don't
> overdose on it) and believe it or not a modified form of chelating
> citrus pectin sold by life extension foundation http://www.lef.org
>
> Much of the heavy metal contamination such as mercury and lead comes
> from coal and heavy bunker oil. It concentrates in the food chain
> especialy fish and althougt it may spare a mature male it can wreak
> havoc with an embroyo and its rapidly dividing cells or possibly screw
> with sensitive parts of the body, sperm or egg cells etc.
>
> We need to keep this stuff away from our women and children. After
> all what is war for but them.

Beware being a bit overly alarming vis a vis lead contamination. There was a
case here in the US a few years back where the EPA tried to steamroll into
the Aspen, CO area with prognostications of serious health risks and the
need for immediate remediation efforts to handle the high lead levels that
were a result of silver mining/processing back in the good ol' days. Luckily
for the locals, they were a bit more savvy and better financed than some of
the other areas where the EPA has ridden in roughshod to "improve" the
quality of life. The EPA was *certain* they would find lead levels in the
blood exceeeding their 10 micrograms per deciliter limit in "99% of the
local children". The locals insisted upon testing before they would agree to
any remediation effort, and the actual blood tests revealed an average level
around 3 micrograms per deciliter, which was actually among the lower levels
observed around the nation. Even in the face of that proof the EPA was
reluctant to give up on taking control in the local area...

Brooks

>
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

>
> Not originally, from what I have read. IIRC the original composition was
> reportedly steel with a ceramic layer (or layers), with the DU being added
> later by the US (I don't recall its being used by the Challenger II?).
>
> Brooks
>

Challenger II is officially listed as being protected by
second generation Chobham armour, the exact
composition os of course secret but the understanding
I have is it uses either DU or tungsten in place of
the steel in first generation armor

Keith

[Kevin Brooks]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > Not originally, from what I have read. IIRC the original composition was
> > reportedly steel with a ceramic layer (or layers), with the DU being
added
> > later by the US (I don't recall its being used by the Challenger II?).
> >
> > Brooks
> >
>
> Challenger II is officially listed as being protected by
> second generation Chobham armour, the exact
> composition os of course secret but the understanding
> I have is it uses either DU or tungsten in place of
> the steel in first generation armor

Odd, since from what I have read the aggregate weight increase between
Challeneger I and Challeneger II is only about 500 kg; OTOH, the change from
the M1 to the M1A1 brought a change in weight of about six *tons* (and that
change from the 105mm to the 120mm gun did not account for a great deal of
that, I'd imagine). How could they have switched to a DU (or tungsten) armor
package and only increase the vehicle weight by some thousand pounds plus in
the case of Challenger?

Brooks

>
> Keith
>
>

[Pat Carpenter]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:47:33 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>> > In article >,
>> > on 5 May 2004 11:24:25 -0700,
>> > robert arndt attempted to say .....
>> >
>> > > http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
>> > >
>> > > It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage
>> with
>> > > their tungsten rounds:)
>> > > Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
>> > > At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
>> > > "partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...
>> > >
>> >
>> > Hmmm,
>> > isn't tungsten considered a heavy metal ?
>> >
>> > I don't think I'll be jumping in any damaged tanks after a strike of
>> your
>> > "uber"round without the proper protective measures.
>> >
>> > I'm not fond of heavy metal poisoning...
>>
>> Not all heavy metals are equaly dangerous. Silver is highly toxic but
>> doesn't concentrat in tissues which is why it has antiseptic
>> properties. I haven't bothered checking in regards to tungsten.
>>
>> Heavy metals are generaly nasty for people. It is possible to use
>> chelating substances to remove some. Selenium is chelating (don't
>> overdose on it) and believe it or not a modified form of chelating
>> citrus pectin sold by life extension foundation http://www.lef.org
>>
>> Much of the heavy metal contamination such as mercury and lead comes
>> from coal and heavy bunker oil. It concentrates in the food chain
>> especialy fish and althougt it may spare a mature male it can wreak
>> havoc with an embroyo and its rapidly dividing cells or possibly screw
>> with sensitive parts of the body, sperm or egg cells etc.
>>
>> We need to keep this stuff away from our women and children. After
>> all what is war for but them.
>
>Beware being a bit overly alarming vis a vis lead contamination. There was a
>case here in the US a few years back where the EPA tried to steamroll into
>the Aspen, CO area with prognostications of serious health risks and the
>need for immediate remediation efforts to handle the high lead levels that
>were a result of silver mining/processing back in the good ol' days. Luckily
>for the locals, they were a bit more savvy and better financed than some of
>the other areas where the EPA has ridden in roughshod to "improve" the
>quality of life. The EPA was *certain* they would find lead levels in the
>blood exceeeding their 10 micrograms per deciliter limit in "99% of the
>local children". The locals insisted upon testing before they would agree to
>any remediation effort, and the actual blood tests revealed an average level
>around 3 micrograms per deciliter, which was actually among the lower levels
>observed around the nation. Even in the face of that proof the EPA was
>reluctant to give up on taking control in the local area...
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>>
>>
>
"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040122090433.htm
Blue Skies
Pat Carpenter

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Tue, 11 May 2004 13:03:37 +0100,
Keith Willshaw attempted to say .....

>
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > I believe the M1A2 has dropped the DU armour in favour of Chobham
> > style armour.
> >
> >
>
> And what exactly do you think is used in Chobham armour ?
>
> Hint: its generally believed to be made of layers
> of ceramic and some hard heavy metal.
>

Marshmellows, graham crackers and hershey bars............


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Eunometic]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > In article >,
> > > on 5 May 2004 11:24:25 -0700,
> > > robert arndt attempted to say .....
> > >
> > > > http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html
> > > >
> > > > It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage
> with
> > > > their tungsten rounds:)
> > > > Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
> > > > At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
> > > > "partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmmm,
> > > isn't tungsten considered a heavy metal ?
> > >
> > > I don't think I'll be jumping in any damaged tanks after a strike of
> your
> > > "uber"round without the proper protective measures.
> > >
> > > I'm not fond of heavy metal poisoning...
> >
> > Not all heavy metals are equaly dangerous. Silver is highly toxic but
> > doesn't concentrat in tissues which is why it has antiseptic
> > properties. I haven't bothered checking in regards to tungsten.
> >
> > Heavy metals are generaly nasty for people. It is possible to use
> > chelating substances to remove some. Selenium is chelating (don't
> > overdose on it) and believe it or not a modified form of chelating
> > citrus pectin sold by life extension foundation http://www.lef.org
> >
> > Much of the heavy metal contamination such as mercury and lead comes
> > from coal and heavy bunker oil. It concentrates in the food chain
> > especialy fish and althougt it may spare a mature male it can wreak
> > havoc with an embroyo and its rapidly dividing cells or possibly screw
> > with sensitive parts of the body, sperm or egg cells etc.
> >
> > We need to keep this stuff away from our women and children. After
> > all what is war for but them.
>
> Beware being a bit overly alarming vis a vis lead contamination. There was a
> case here in the US a few years back where the EPA tried to steamroll into
> the Aspen, CO area with prognostications of serious health risks and the
> need for immediate remediation efforts to handle the high lead levels that
> were a result of silver mining/processing back in the good ol' days. Luckily
> for the locals, they were a bit more savvy and better financed than some of
> the other areas where the EPA has ridden in roughshod to "improve" the
> quality of life. The EPA was *certain* they would find lead levels in the
> blood exceeeding their 10 micrograms per deciliter limit in "99% of the
> local children". The locals insisted upon testing before they would agree to
> any remediation effort, and the actual blood tests revealed an average level
> around 3 micrograms per deciliter, which was actually among the lower levels
> observed around the nation. Even in the face of that proof the EPA was
> reluctant to give up on taking control in the local area...
>
> Brooks
>

Most agencies in the USA seem to be getting out of hand and more and
more prosecutorial and even draconian. They are getting 'self
serving'. I've seen this in divisions in a company, charities,
political organisations etc and even the military.

Once they do their basic job they start expanding their area of
interest and adding extra goals and visions. This builds careers,
empires, power etc. The usual practice in business is to kill a
division now and then.

All of these agencies in the USA don't seem to be counterbalanced
effectively anymore. I think it simply takes to many resources to
fund the court battles to do so while the agencies have access to
effectively unlimited resources. All those MBAs and Lawyers and
Phiranhas gotta eat.

Something like the EPA is obviously needed in a population of 250
million althout the need for it would be minimal in a population of
125 million.

I know a woman who ate fish 6 times a week to stay slim and healthy.
She had nearly a dozen miscariages. When she had her deformed
placenta tested it was 200-400 times the safe limit. There are lots
of sources of it: combution of oil and coal adds a lot. You need to
know what fish to eat. Basically short lived fish low in the food
chain.

Given that most military personel are probably some of the better
specimens in society it's extremely important to protect their
reproductive health.

[Drewe Manton]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

> There is a mention that the export version of the M1A2
> (which would be new build) does not have the DU, but it is kind of
> hard to tell for sure, as the exact armor composition is still
> classified.
>

It's difficult to over emphasise just *HOW* classified all these armour
compositions are. Talking to a tankee at Bovington a while back, he
mentioned that they were in the maintenance sheds one day working on
their vehicles when a team from Vickers arrived to do something regarding
the armour. All the operators of the vehicle were told to leave the area
and pop down the NAAFI for a few hours while they did the necessary work
and allowed them back to their vehicles. . .

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 02:14:00 GMT, Tank Fixer
> wrote:


>> And what exactly do you think is used in Chobham armour ?
>>
>> Hint: its generally believed to be made of layers
>> of ceramic and some hard heavy metal.
>>
>
>Marshmellows, graham crackers and hershey bars............

Nah, 100% pure depleted unobtainium.


greg

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

[Paul F Austin]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > I've read that the training darts include a pyrotechnic that deploys
drag
> > features after about 2Km of flight so that smaller ranges can be used.
Is
> > there anything to that?
> >
>
> Yes, the sabot practice round is indeed range-limited, however not through
a
> pyrotechnic (as far as I know).
>
> The M865/E2 is the current sabot training round, and it uses a slotted
tail
> cone instead of tail fins on the projectile in order to limit its range.
> Performance-wise, the round itself is 'functionally indistinguishable'
from
> the live round, in that the round weighs, looks and feels the same (for
the
> loader) as the live round, and it will fire and travel the same as the
live
> round as well (for the gunner). The only difference from the crews point
of
> view is the range. Beyond that, they work with the training round in
exactly
> the same manner as they would a real one. The M1 computer systems will
> compensate automatically for any ballistic differences between the two
> rounds, so the crew will not see any major difference while training.
>
> More info on the subject:
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m865.htm

Thanks.