[TheForge] armour was (Re: OT rant (armor))

[Andrew Vida]

Chris Kilpatrick wrote:
> I thought they used Depleted uranium for bullets due to
 > it's density which translates to force.  I don't see how
 > DU would be useful for tanks, being so heavy and fairly
 > malleable.

	DU is used as a pentrator because of its high density, better than 
twice that of steel.  Upon impact, it basically liquefies, at least 
partially.  The combination of high temperature generated from the 
impulse of the warhead with target, the high density of the material, 
and the lubricating action of liquefied metal makes for high 
penetrations.  The Russian 125mm high velocity smoothbore gun, tossing a 
DU projectile will pierce, on average, about 680mm of RHA at 2000 
meters.  The M1 armor is rated as something like 400mm RHA (Rolled 
Homogeneous Armor), even though the DU construction allows for thinner 
sections.  For a nominal increase in weight, there is a great increase 
in the RHA equivalent protection, though as we can see a Russian tank 
will kill an M1A1 with ease, if it hits with DU.  The pentagon crows 
about this tank, which is partially justifiable, but we've never gone 
against T-90s.  I suspect the M1A1 is a superior vehicle in all terms 
except for the gun, which is probably easily matched by the Russian 
equivalent.  But if we went head to head with a force of T-90s, we would 
see appalling losses.  If you've never seen a busted tank, do a web 
search.  It's pretty ugly, if amazing.  My parents used to climb around 
in knocked out tanks during the war.  They said the incinerated remains 
of the soldiers were not pleasant to see.


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.5.2 - Release Date: 12/13/2004