Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Geronimo]

Depleted Uranium shells in Ukraine?

No thank you.

[pchang]

Depleted Uranium shells in Ukraine?

Why would you think there are?

[Dinner]

There are because the U.K. gave them some. BTW that isn't remotely a big deal as they are less radioactive then naturally occurring rocks plus they are the densest metal known to man and so makes an excellent armor piercing shell. Of course, mention anything on the subject and the idiots will wrongly think it has something to do with nuclear weapons.

[N35t0r]

Uranium is extremely toxic and pyrophoric, which is not a good combination.

OTOH, with all the crap russia hast been dropping in Ukraine (including blowing up soviet-era stockpiles of solid rocket motors and other explosives which are extremely hazardous chemically, and they were supposed to take care of safely disposing of), if Ukraine wants to use toxic tank shells in order to kick the Russians out faster, they're welcome to.

[Edit:] it's also not the densest metal. That is Osmium. And gold and tungsten (another preferred component of AP ammo) are also slightly more dense than uranium.

[BeBMan]

Came across this some days ago....Ukrainian farmer MacGyvers his tractors for mine-clearing

[Geronimo]

There are because the U.K. gave them some. BTW that isn't remotely a big deal as they are less radioactive then naturally occurring rocks plus they are the densest metal known to man and so makes an excellent armor piercing shell. Of course, mention anything on the subject and the idiots will wrongly think it has something to do with nuclear weapons.

They make for terrible publicity are impossible to clean up (in no small measure because the low radioactivity and tendency to generate lots of tiny dust on impact) and people afterwards attribute every illness to their presence. Totally not worth it this time because Russia has nothing remotely armored enough to see the effective difference in their use.


...but I agree their use should not be considered a big deal.

[N35t0r]

They make for terrible publicity are impossible to clean up (in no small measure because the low radioactivity and tendency to generate lots of tiny dust on impact) and people afterwards attribute every illness to their presence. Totally not worth it this time because Russia has nothing remotely armored enough to see the effective difference in their use.


...but I agree their use should not be considered a big deal.

DU's toxicity is several orders of magnitude more hazardous than its radioactivity.

[PLATO]

I remember reading that DU shells are the standard shell for the Challenger. The U.S. used a lot of DU shells in Iraq. Hard to say if they are more damaging to the environment than many other aspects of war though. I am sure the West will pour money into Ukraine after the war to help clean up the mess even though the Russians should pay. If DU shells can help defeat Russian aggression then they should be used. The consequences for the Ukrainian people would be less than being butchered by Russian troops.

[Geronimo]

DU's toxicity is several orders of magnitude more hazardous than its radioactivity.

I mention the low radioactivity only because if it was higher it might be easier to find and clean up local concentrations in a timely manner before they disperse everywhere. The toxicity is terrible and the burning contributes to the dispersal. I still maintain that there isn't any real benefit to using it in Ukraine as the weapons were designed to deal with effective armor plating using a material that is both more available in quantity and considerably less toxic than alternatives like osmium, which is not only more expensive and harder to machine than DU, but also has considerably more toxic oxides than DU (0.002 mg/m3 upper safe limit vs 0.2 mg/m3 upper safe limit for DU oxides). No effective armor plating in use by your enemy? Then no value over conventional density ammunition.

I also maintain that the use doesn't have to be a big deal, all things considered. Not worth using there but not a big deal that it was.

[Geronimo]

I remember reading that DU shells are the standard shell for the Challenger. The U.S. used a lot of DU shells in Iraq. Hard to say if they are more damaging to the environment than many other aspects of war though. I am sure the West will pour money into Ukraine after the war to help clean up the mess even though the Russians should pay. If DU shells can help defeat Russian aggression then they should be used. The consequences for the Ukrainian people would be less than being butchered by Russian troops.

if there is no alternative compatible ammo at all for the challengers then I suppose I enthusiastically endorse the use of the DU shells. Ukraine can't afford to shelve any of the few western tanks it received. I hope there is a more conventional ammo available for them however, if only to avoid the bad press and cheap propaganda points.

[Dinner]

I wonder if the U.K. has tungsten shells some where? I know they were used as AP rounds up to the early 1960's. DU was just superior and ended up replacing them.

[Geronimo]

Dp

[Dauphin]

There are because the U.K. gave them some. BTW that isn't remotely a big deal as they are less radioactive then naturally occurring rocks plus they are the densest metal known to man and so makes an excellent armor piercing shell. Of course, mention anything on the subject and the idiots will wrongly think it has something to do with nuclear weapons.

Which is why Putin was using that rhetoric of 'nuclear component' weapons when the UK started to supply them a few months back. To agitate that population.

[Berzerker]

I thought DU was implicated in birth defects in Iraq

[N35t0r]

I thought DU was implicated in birth defects in Iraq

There's been an uptick of birth defects in Iraq since the war, but the link to DU rounds is not really established.

War is hell, and it could be a lot of other things as well.