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.
