Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: ps01%gte.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Paul L. Suh) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium Message-ID: <8230@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 13 Jul 89 03:09:22 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 65 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "Paul L. Suh" %In sci.military Digest Monday, 10 July, 1989 Volume 2 : Issue 41 "Nicholas %C. Hester" writes: %> > DU is extremely hard, and denser than tungsten (or lead); these two %> > properties make it an excellent choice for kinetic energy armor %> > penetrators. [ ... ] An added bonus of DU is that it is somewhat %> > pyrophoric; that is, it is easy to ignite (say, by slamming it into a %> > metal plate at a few thousand feet per second 8-); this gives it an added %> > incendiary effect, which may or may not be useful against tanks. - Bill ] %> This is interesting in that the Army is going to add DU to the armor of the %> M1. Will this help protect the tank, or possibly create a greater incendiary %> situation? %In one installment of "For Your Eyes Only" in the old _Strategy_&_Tactics_, I %recall a brief discussion on depleted uranium rounds. One interesting point %raised (that I have not heard mentioned since) was _S&T's_ contention that upon %encountering massive G forces (such as would occur upon striking armor at high %speed), a DU round will emit an intensely lethal but extremely brief burst of %radiation. They claimed this could very well be fatal to armor crews, even if %the round did no other damage. Does this sound logical? I have the issue and %can dig it out with some effort, if anybody wants the specifics. %-- %NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. %~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ %BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 %"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson This is absolutely NOT the case. Depleted uranium rounds are only barely radioactive. This effect _might_ occur if you used enriched uranium, where the crushing effect of the impact (not the G forces) would initiate a partial chain reaction. (Many tactical nukes currently in use apply this principle: if the fissionables are squeezed to a higher density, you can use less of them. They are the so-called 'sub-critical' tac nukes. The squeezing is done by explosive charges in excess of those otherwise used to detonate the bomb.) However, the hull of a tank is pretty good protection against radiation (most modern tanks have a lead liner inside the armor) if it is not penetrated. If it _is_ penetrated, then the radiation effects are probably pointless overkill. Not to mention that enriched uranium is expensive and in short supply; while depleted uranium, the byproduct of the enrichment process, is relatively abundant and cheap. A similar sort of thing which has appeared in some science fiction works (this does not exist currently, and probably won't for the near future) is the collapsible round. It is a hollow shell (much like a present-day artillery round without the HE filler) made of an element with a low critical mass. While the shell retains its shape, it will not fission, because although it has the necessary critical mass, that mass is spread over a large volume. When it impacts on a target, the shell collapses, thus triggering a nuclear explosion. These rounds were supposed to be of ~40mm in size. Lastly, I've heard that analysis of pictures of the inside of a T-80 shows that the Soviets have developed a DU armor insert for the front of the turret. (The insert was removed for the pictures, but the mounting brackets were still visible.) Can anyone confirm this? --Paul ps01@gte-labs.com