3 ms·

For penetrators you want density, hardness, and other penetration aiding properties. Tungsten is very dense, but as you point out it blunts when hitting a targe

For penetrators you want density, hardness, and other penetration aiding properties. Tungsten is very dense, but as you point out it blunts when hitting a target, reducing its effectiveness (but if you have enough it'll still work). The guardian article you linked is a little bit off on the properties of Uranium. Uranium is self sharpening (which means that when it slams into a target it fragments splinters off, leaving behind a sharp point). Uranium is also pyrophoric, which doesn't mean that it burns away pieces into vapor, rather it means that when it scrapes along as it's penetrating through metal it throws off sparks, just as flint and steel does. Additionally, Uranium is more flammable than Tunsten. This means that a long rod Uranium penetrator can punch through thicker armor than Tungsten and it spits out a rain of sparks and splinters as a burning hypervelocity rod comes through the other side of the armor. This leads to a very bad day for the target. However, because of that pyrophoricity and that burning the result of using lots of DU shells on hardened armored targets is a lot of DU dust and vapor. Because Uranium is a toxic heavy metal this can have disastrous health effects.

the_af 9y ago
> However, because of that pyrophoricity and that burning the result of using lots of DU shells on hardened armored targets is a lot of DU dust and vapor. Because Uranium is a toxic heavy metal this can have disastrous health effects. Well, I imagine being hit by a tank round has so profoundly disastrous health effects anyway, the metal toxicity doesn't matter much! (Yes, I know you probably meant adverse health effects for the people who wander into the area after the crew is killed, much like it happens with nukes, but still. The considerations are bizarre, like the article said)
- petre 9y ago
  > Well, I imagine being hit by a tank round has so profoundly disastrous health effects anyway, the metal toxicity doesn't matter much! It's also toxic for the people firing the rounds because blowing up a cartrigde will also evaporate some trace amount of the bullet.
- InclinedPlane 9y ago
  The considerations are hardly bizarre. People live in warzones. People live in warzones just after they've been warzones. This is even more true in urban warfare. This is why the civilized world tries very hard to avoid using landmines in war, and why there's so much effort into preventing civilian casualties with unexploded munitions like cluster bombs, for example. There is an argument to be made on whether or not the risk of collateral damage is justified, it's impossible to make war completely "safe", of course, but with DU the evidence is stacking up that the collateral damage is extreme and probably not a good tradeoff.

the_af 9y ago

> However, because of that pyrophoricity and that burning the result of using lots of DU shells on hardened armored targets is a lot of DU dust and vapor. Because Uranium is a toxic heavy metal this can have disastrous health effects. Well, I imagine being hit by a tank round has so profoundly disastrous health effects anyway, the metal toxicity doesn't matter much! (Yes, I know you probably meant adverse health effects for the people who wander into the area after the crew is killed, much like it happens with nukes, but still. The considerations are bizarre, like the article said)

petre 9y ago
> Well, I imagine being hit by a tank round has so profoundly disastrous health effects anyway, the metal toxicity doesn't matter much! It's also toxic for the people firing the rounds because blowing up a cartrigde will also evaporate some trace amount of the bullet.
InclinedPlane 9y ago
The considerations are hardly bizarre. People live in warzones. People live in warzones just after they've been warzones. This is even more true in urban warfare. This is why the civilized world tries very hard to avoid using landmines in war, and why there's so much effort into preventing civilian casualties with unexploded munitions like cluster bombs, for example. There is an argument to be made on whether or not the risk of collateral damage is justified, it's impossible to make war completely "safe", of course, but with DU the evidence is stacking up that the collateral damage is extreme and probably not a good tradeoff.