Wow, that was LO even for you
Lord help us.
Answer: longer, jacketed heavy-metal rods.
Then we get:
Wow improvements to their thesis hopefully DU governments don’t discover this improvement to make the DU round even BETTER from years ago my goodness that would be awful.
Therefore, NO REAL application of DU rounds especially classified U.S. DU ammunition. Makes sense since DU behaves completely different than Tungsten who would of thought?
I just read a whole lot of garbage to prove the DU rounds are still superior and they can’t even be tested in a this this glorified excel calculator.
It’s official I’ve been told to look at LOs just to prove a point its grade A clown show.
Lastly, not only is the Abrams from Sweden but it’s ammo is also wrong WT uses the same general APFSDS calculation framework for DU and tungsten rounds
In conclusion: Here’s a primary source history lesson if you care to learn that DU > Tungsten
https://gulflink.health.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabe.htm
And a screenshot it isn’t third party BS excel calculator.
Can I get the source for the comparison chart you have? This would be good to have, if it’s a primary source it would be golden.
EDIT: Actually DM me it I’m good on this forum nothing worthwhile left.
You quoted the closing Remark of the paper, a one-line disclaimer about the authors future predictions for jacketed penetrators, then “answered” with “longer, jacketed heavy-metal rods” while that’s literally what the authors predict. Your entire “debunk” of the document is regarding a segment on the current trend and potential future while ignoring anything it says about the downsides of DU in current penetrators. You are making a statment showing a clear missunderstanding of the topic at hand (assuming jacket = sabot?), this potential future is talking about darts nobody currently services with only few experimental APFSDS made which align to this predicition (XH45 with an inner LD of ~80).
You completely failed to answer any of the actual material characteristics and downsides MENTIONED in the paper regarding DU, and you’re “debunking” it based on future predictions that have since been partly proven right via projects like XH45. You have failed to talk about: 1) the material downsides of DU in a direct 1-to-1 comparison to WHA, like how WHA already surpasses DU by 3x in Young’s modulus (360 vs 120 GPa), or 2) the downsides this difference causes in DU APFSDS design, specifically the need for stronger, heavier sabots to support DU during acceleration even with the 0.75% titanium alloy the US uses. Notably, the paper’s own future-trend section explicitly requires high Young’s modulus materials for both the jacket and the core to handle the forces involved. But I did not talk about potential future penetrators in my argument.
Can you not read? You managed to ignore the entire point of the paper and skipped to the part about “TRENDS” and future rounds which aren’t even in service. They’re referring to jacketed penetrators, aka penetrators with a steel/alloy jacket around a dense core, à la 3BM42 or experimental XH45, as can be clearly seen when you read the green and underlined part. The entire POINT of jacketed penetrators was to increase the L/D while retaining strength for the penetrator. A DU core will still have the same issues as a monoblock DU projectile. If you hadn’t noticed, jacket ≠ sabot, a jacket for APFSDS is a steel / alloy sleeve around the core, it does not fly away like sabot.
They can, I’ve shown you, but you refused to look at it I guess? I don’t understand what you did wrong, so you’re blaming the tool instead of trying to fix it or asking for help.
You mean an alloy like 0.75% titanium that still needs stiffer and heavier sabots? Wonder where that was said…
You’re also ignoring that these tests refer to the tests already posted above, which are 15 years older than the document in question, and as I’ve already said, they don’t disagree with the data. They expand on it in more detail. Specifically, they show that trying to use data for lightweight, low-velocity rounds isn’t applicable to large, high-L/D penetrators with significantly higher mass and impact energy. Almost exactly what we’ve been saying for the past 3 hours. And again, WHA has come a long way since then, as already shown in the paper where it has equal or better tensile strength with 3x larger Young’s modulus.
Graph Demonstrating Velocity changes
If you actually take the time to look at it, you will see that at LOWER VELOCITIES, DU outperforms WHA in fixed impact energy scenarios with an L/D ratio of 30. Why is this different from the test data you’re talking about? Because the data in question specifically talks about low-velocity, low-mass penetrators using a much older WHA. It might have been true in the late 1980s and mid-1990s that DU was potentially better in all aspects, but that simply hasn’t been the case for decades now. Espesially with large penetrators.
note it seems you have deleted this for some reason, wonder why
The paper’s goal was not to show whether WHA or DU is better. It shows the history and development of APFSDS penetrators over the past decades while making an educated guess for the future given trends of the time, as clearly stated at the very top. It was authored by 3 people, all funded by European institutes who work directly in this field. One of them is from the Swiss Defence Procurement Agency, a government-funded and operated department. This is the combined work of the Swiss government, Swiss industry (RUAG, Mowag, etc.), and a French-German defence research institute (ISL) funded by both the German and French MoDs.
This paper describes the main development steps of KE projectiles
from the basic full calibre antitank steel round to today’s heavy metal
sub-calibre penetrators having an aspect ratio of 30, along with the
corresponding penetration performance increase. A plausible
development trend will be jacketed heavy metal rods having aspect
ratios of 40 plus. Penetration results of big calibre firing tests with
monoblock and jacketed penetrators are presented. The conclusion is
that both projectile types yield the same penetration for the same rod
length and the same velocity.
Two nations. According to the UN report, it’s the Brits (who are switching away) and the Americans. Neither the Russians, French (who make WHA rounds like Shard), Chinese, Germans, Italians, nor Israelis have claimed DU to be universally superior, even though many have plenty of access to fissile material.
Russia does not service large amounts of DU ammounition, their most commonly produced round (3BM42) is WHA, the only exception is 3BM46 which is rather rare in itself and 59 which is a unicorn, espesially compared to its WHA counterpart. France literally uses a DU version of DM43 which would have lower performance than its WHA counterpart due to being heavier and, well DU. The UK is buying german WHA rounds for their challanger 3, specificially Ke2020neo (eKE / DM83).
These only corroborate the data already posted. If you had actually read the graph, you would have seen that at lower velocities (under 1600 m/s) DU penetrates more armour at constant impact energy than WHA. This remains true for smaller calibre and slower rounds.
Here, I’ll give you an example. Below is my calculation for M919 using LO, once with DU and once with Gaijin’s WHA. M919 is a 25mm Bushmaster round, well below tank-gun energies and within the data from the tirals you are talking about. As you can see, it is in fact TRUE that lower-calibre, slower rounds perform better with DU than WHA. BUT (and it’s a big “but”) this changes once we increase the energy. At the energies that actually matter for MBT engagements, DU starts to perform worse than WHA, as the F1 vs F2 comparison shows.
F1 vs F2
Change in velocity is likeley due to the increased weight of the pentrator and reinforced sabot. Sourced from Nexter.
They don’t use identical data. They have distinct values for DU shells, using 18.6 g/cm³ density. The general formula is the same, yes, but it’s applied with different material inputs (18.6 g/cm³ for DU vs 17.5 g/cm³ for WHA in WT’s case). Once again, your lack of knowledge on the topic at hand exposes the misinformation you’re spreading.
This entire fiasco has shown that you can’t actually engage with the topics at hand. You failed to address any of the points both Jecka and I brought up, while managing to confuse basic terminology and being unable to read the paper in the correct order. You went from the ending up and completely missed any of the data I actually used in my argument. You likely also managed to confuse perforation with penetration, and instead of thinking critically and reading, you yell, and yell, and yell without end. You neither take the time to read nor to construct clear, coherent, and factually correct arguments.
I’m happy to discuss these topics when coherent sources and clearly structured arguments are involved, not dishonest interpretations of the data being discussed. But I doubt anything I, or anyone else has to say will change your mind. But seeing that you decided to not complain about the data I quoted, I guess it must be true.
TL;DR
You have no data backing your claim. The only source cited discusses much older tests using outdated WHA on low calibre, low velocity autocannon APFSDS, not modern high energy long rod penetrators. You then tried applying those results to MBT rounds while completely missing the actual argument Jecka and I made. You also confused basic terms like perforation vs penetration, then blamed the tool instead of addressing the data itself. All the while deleting arguments & msgs you knew didnt make any sense.
P.S. You edited and deleted a lot of your msgs, so im going to be responding to them as I first saw them. If you dont like me responding to your original points I will remove them.
2 Likes
You’re entire findings revolves on this one form when there have been multiple primary sources given to you left and right. For clarification, this document is stating, if this-> then that-> assume this-> you get that. War Thunder uses this calculator for general guesses on their rounds even to the point it will behave completely false from the actual DU rounds. As stated, “Case of Penetration: Only Tungsten available” meaning it cannot directly calculate DU semi-infinite penetration in that software.
Again all thesis with the knowledge they contain in an unclassified level. Alloy means mixture of metals and they do not know the full extent of the materials used in DU to know its true capabilities. Since its mainly classified plain and simple.
You’re arguing against a point I’m not making. I’m not saying jacket = sabot. My point is that the paper does not prove “WHA always beats DU.” It shows tradeoffs. Yes, DU has lower stiffness than tungsten, but the paper also says DU has slightly better impact behavior in RHA.
Also, saying jacketed DU has the exact same issues as monoblock DU is too broad. The purpose of a jacket is to improve stiffness and reduce bending/break-up. The paper even references steel-jacketed DU penetrators as their own topic.
So the fair conclusion is: DU and tungsten each have pros and cons. The better round depends on full design, not just material. (Again classified) answer the following too.
I was allowed a max of 3 messages and wanted to know what a previous user said so I changed it over to that.
I agree the paper is not meant to prove DU vs WHA either way. That actually supports my point.
It does not prove “DU > tungsten,” but it also does not prove “WHA > DU.” It shows tradeoffs: DU has slightly better impact behavior in RHA, while tungsten has stiffness and sabot-design advantages.
So the fair conclusion is that neither material is automatically better. The better round depends on the full design: rod length, velocity, sabot mass, alloy, stiffness, and target type.
If you spend time to research it’s not because DU is not superior but DU is a major hazard and requires nuclear waste.That is too simple. Countries do not choose DU or tungsten based only on penetration.
The U.S. still uses DU in M829A4, so DU is clearly not obsolete or useless. At the same time, European countries often use tungsten because it avoids DU’s political, environmental, storage, and handling issues.
So tungsten being widely used does not prove it is always better future case. It only proves it is good enough and easier to field. The real answer is still design-dependent: DU has impact-behavior advantages, while tungsten has stiffness and logistics advantages.
Lastly, if you bothered to read the primary source instead of being so caught up in your LO nonsense it states the following:
If you follow enough to find proof vs just sleeping in LO all day you would see the following:
And to spoon feed you further some have or are developing and the list goes on United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Pakistan, Oman, Thailand, China, India, and Taiwan.
Lastly, another third party source as to what’s happening.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB980811454568652778
Only thing worth responding here is simple
You and the other clown have only shown the Source from LO based on thesis and other jargon I’m positive you don’t understand cause it was even difficult for me to put it together from reading it. Others have already shown primary government sources and you two want to die on that hill that’s on you.
Long story short your document doesn’t show anything of substance , however, Tungsten = less controversy therefore good enough round as an alternative to the environment health hazards.
Again United Nations attempting to ban DU rounds, because even though their superior along with other sources people have given you, are a huge hazard VS. some third party source you and the other clown want to die on.
Your document does not prove WHA is universally better.
A UN report that doesn’t give any data, and a 1990 test using horrible WHA and exclusively at low calibre dimensions? But LO doesn’t count when he shows his test data but the American one does even though both are funded by MoDs? Again you didn’t read anything that actually supports the argument.
Love how you also contradict yourself, somehow superior yet not. The data clearly shows (even “your” outdated tests) that WHA is superior the more you scale up. If you can’t accept it I’ll leave you in your delusions. The YM differences are easy to wave off if you have no clue what they mean, which is something you seem to lack.
Or as you like to say, nothing of substance while showing and talking about clear design restrictions and performance limits. Specifically mentioning how any benefit, as small as it might be is not realistically achievable due to said design limitations.
Though I am curious to see all those DU darts from the nations you mentioned :) oh wait, none of them actually use DU darts? What a suprise.
2 Likes
You can disagree as much as you want, DU tank rounds are just flat out worse in every. Every applicable source says so
2 Likes
Provided 0 sources. Have been spoon fed multiple sources from primary entities. Here’s my reply since that’s all you and that other clown are worth it when it comes to discussions.
Its basic physics and several studies show tungsten shatters catastrophically compared to DU. The difference is DU being self sharpening keeps its edge unlike Tungsten. It also has left post pen damage due to the round peeling off vs the DU being pyrophoric and burning everything in the vehicle.
Kennisgeving voor omleiding - This references the better pen due to self sharpening.
All of these show how DU is more efficient at penetrating and also post pen damage.
^ Blatant skill issue when real sources disprove your point XD
1 Like
Not from LO.
This is their response when spoon fed.
Check the history all their delusions come from one third party source. Then it’s all “trust me” without any sources.
Anyone with a brain and a 30 minute you tube watch of Nile red would be able to understand that at high tempatures and pressure DU preforms better than tungsten.
If it ain’t LO then who knows.
EDIT: those are some good sources too good job.
And none of the sources show that, while the rest is based on 1980s findings to regurgirate “muh DU better”.
This has to be rage bait
Lmao, not even close.
DU rounds are tend to become fragile after certain muzzle velocity and its already proven by test results which is why M829 family cannot be fired at the same velocity that DM family can.
Tungsten is more resilient at higher velocity compare to DU rounds which is why Germany prefers it in the first place, not to mention if DU round was such a marvel of engineering other countries would already switched to it considering German Leopards can easily fire M829’s with very minor modifications.
USA prefers DU rounds due to bein easily producible thanks to their Nuclear productions.
2 Likes
Do show where these sources state KE grade tungsten heavy alloys are more prone to shattering.
Not tungsten carbide, not other tungsten applications, but WHAs.
Do you even know what flexural rigidity and ductility are…
(https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14168.pdf)
^
This shows what DU does after entering a vehicle, showing micrograms of DU spreading into the vehicle cabin, covering ammo, crew and fuel.
At page 145 you can see more images of the inside of the vehicle, at page 508 you can see the microscope images of the inside sections.
It burns between 5000F - 10,000F as per this source Common Questions About Depleted Uranium - EnergySolutions
And nothing of essence was shown.