Toxic Depleted Uranium Rounds... for Brooks

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

"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

"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?

"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

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.

"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/milita...tions/m865.htm

"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.

"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/milita...nitions/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.

"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.

"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