It was known since US acquired a T-80U and the UK acquired a T-80U and T-80UD in the 1990’s.
Research on 130mm+ guns was a high priority in the late 80’s because of projections about what radical variants would look like. Possibly also fears about limits to what more penetration could be gained with existing calibre, cannons from only new projectile technology.
These guns were never about penetrating any T-64, T-72 or T-80 variant. They were shelved when the cold war “ended” but were evidently put back into active research when they became more aware about various late Soviet prototypes (the very same vehicles those guns were designed in anticipation of) and also the T-14 being revealed.
It’s a fact since KF51 was shown with 130mm as an example. Clearly those shelved designs were re-developed in anticipation of more armoured targets.
So no proof? Pure conjecture, you do know how many different chemicals were used during these wars right? It could literally be anything. Point of fact, we didn’t see similar issues in any other warzone that DU was used in i.e. if this were true it would have already affected Iraq from the gulf war, but it apparently didn’t why is that? It does state what I already stated however i.e. that inhaling it is what makes it dangerous.
Since most export munitions use Tungsten and Germany AFAIK specifically avoids DU, I’m not sure that’s necessarily the case.
It is the case, however the few studies that have been done do state it may even be carcinogenic, there is next to no research on Tungsten ammo/armour. It being used by other countries means next to nothing.
I have already read all of these, like I said in my first reply to you, M1s started being upgraded to SEPv3s in 2017/2018, 215 SEPv3 is still currently more then what GDLS has made since 2020.
If the general says “M1A1HA is the only tank we can use” and then says “Or an M1A1 with 19mm steel plate welded to the cheeks” does that not imply those are interchangeable? If the purpose of M1A1HA is additional protection and 19mm steel on the turret cheeks makes that interchangeable, it doesn’t say much positively about how much additional protection the DU gives.
But hey ho, M1A1HA was early days and M1A2 SEP use more advanced composites which should be more effective. It only shows that DU isn’t magical and is just a material with a few slightly better properties.
My core point is, whichever means it is toxic, it is undoubtedly toxic, tungesten may be as well. I don’t care which is more or less toxic. The important point is that decision makers likely don’t care even slightly about this, manufacturers neither.
I trust conjecture (implying there’s no scientific evidence, which there is even linked in the article) from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (people I’m told may know some things about radiation and radioactive material) over pretty much any “evidence” coming from armies or army affiliated organisations, mostly because they don’t do normal academic work since academics are obliged to be transparent and cite sources, not just make claims from thin air nobody else can verify.
Imagine thinking 24 SEPv3 in 2017, 56 SEPv3 in 2018 and 135 in 2019 is a “few”, like I said as of 2023 GDLS hadn’t made 215 SEPv3 since their contract was awarded.
Don’t believe everything you read in an article, the US budget reports make it pretty clear what was going on, they were procuring SEPv3s (215) prior to the contract being awarded.
Until the tank goes into production it is a concept tank. A concept tank will not see combat. And prove the army was approved to build 250 tanks. All that was provide was a request to upgrade 250 tanks out of 5,000.
No it doesn’t, all it tells me is they had to rapidly come up with a way to try and improve the M1A1s armour, it doesn’t mean it was on par to the DU armour, at the end of the day they weren’t going to have enough M1A1 HAs, so they had to bring what they had meaning even if the M1A1s weren’t going to have the same armour as the HA then some improvement was better then none i.e. that 19mm was apparently seen as a good enough improvement for what they thought they would face.
This once again proves my point, it’s heavy metal makeup is what makes it dangerous, not the radiation, this is why they are talking about what happens when the DU dust is inhaled by people. Regardless, you keep posting stuff that proves my point, they don’t know what is causing said issues and they have never been able to prove what the exact cause is:
This random picture with a context I just thought up do really proof that I’m true.
No offense, but I have a really hard time trusting someone who mostly plays Russian vehicles to see some of these things objectively.
And your proof for it not being true is? Just you saying it isn’t and randomly linking it to something from 30 years ago?
Using the whole “but muh bigger gun experiments/prototypes” in current day arguments honestly seems like a huge cope.
Yeah there was a reason why those programs were initiated and there is also a reason why they were cancelled back then. However there is also likely a reason why the US hasn’t revived those programs.
It was a request until the US government signed off on it i.e. according to you they spent $2.52 billion dollars upgrading said 215 tanks to SEPv3s just for them to not be usable, you’re not serious right?
First off you have a request, so no one has signed off on anything. Second unless you provide documentation that say they built and deliver these tanks they were never built.
The army asks for money all the time and gets denied. You have provided nothing to prove 215 SEPv3 were built before 2020.
I’m sure being radioactive does absolutely nothing helpful. What these documents keep saying is simply there’s no conclusive proof, but strong indirect evidence and it would be silly if the radiation was irrelevant to the health of exposed populations.
In my mind, it’s clearly all but proven. Radioactive material, heavy metal or otherwise, is generally speaking not particularly healthy. It’s factually hazardous at the best of times.
Fine.
Seems you haven’t understood what I’m saying.
The statement about DM53 being proven only in Ukraine isn’t true. As far as I recall, tests done by Germany happened even in the 2000’s or something. Those nations knew long before 2021 if DM53 could punch through the vehicles that existed at that time.
My next sentence I mention that DM53 and equivalent ammunition was known to defeat all then-existing T-64, T-72 and T-80 variants. Because of firing trials during the 1990’s.
danielo is making wrong statements. Even Relikt won’t have been a mystery since basically any major power could construct a T-72B3 equivalent hull composite based on schematics they have, make a copy of relikt based on its technical schematics (which afaik are in a patent application) and just test it out. It’s not like you need live fire trials to figure out things like that.
The 130mm+ guns just aren’t related to T-64, T-72 and T-80 variants because those tanks basically cannot be protected in any meaningful way against any half-decent 130mm+ APFSDS round made since the 80’s.
130mm+ guns are total overkill for that role.
Armored Warfare always did pretty nice research and showed it off, useful information about 140mm programs.
First off you have a request, so no one has signed off on anything. Second unless you provide documentation that say they built and deliver these tanks they were never built.
I gave you a document from 2017 that showed what they were asking for and then a document from 2018 showing they got what they asked for…
Regardless, here is the budget for FY 2019, it shows that what was being asked for in 2017 and 2018 was approved which is why nothing was changed:
The only mystery about Relikt and new version of Kontak 5 is the explosive they used.
Now the Russian only use 4S23 (which is still a secret) for the Relikt and newly produced K5
4S23 is less sensitive again normal round but much more sensitive to anti-tank round.
It being radioactive is actually pretty irrelevant, you do know how dangerous heavy metals are right? You ever hear about lead? It doesn’t give off any radiation like DU does, and I am not going to go around inhaling it, same with Arsenic, I also just gave you a study that found the non-radioactive Tungsten could be carcinogenic… point of fact even Aluminium isn’t safe:
Surprise, heavy metals are dangerous, DU being radioactive is actually the least of its issues.
In my mind, it’s clearly all but proven. Radioactive material, heavy metal or otherwise, is generally speaking not particularly healthy. It’s factually hazardous at the best of times.
I can tell, meanwhile Tungsten is A OK even though there is limited research, the research that has been done points to it being carcinogenic, but hey DU bad Tungsten good.
