The source you linked said you’re wrong. You’re defeated by default.
Also thanks for repeating what I said in a previous post with different words.
If I ever need to go back to elementary school, let’s hope it’s not one from the US “educational” system, because you’re showing to all of us that you learned words, but not how to link them cohesively.
Actually, he’s Australian.
A good example of this property is how a lighter striker works, the ferrocerium doesn’t spontaneously ignite until you operate the striker and fragment a bit of the ferrocerium to make the spark that ignites the lighter
Damn, it’s like what I just said before! Thanks for willing to confirm all say what I said, very kind of you!
Oh man - would not want to be in an Abrams with DU that gets penetrated through that downright explosive, flammable material. It’s basically APHEFSDS according to propaganda articles, after all.
Of course - India still did it better with Penetration CUMBLAST. That’s even more explosive than DU.
you directly claimed DU wasn’t pyrophoric, and how you’re trying to gaslight because I’ve made you appear foolish, but everyone else can see that you have made an imbecile of yourself, congratulations mate
I doubt the IAEA is making propaganda articles for the US military
Truly one of the most magical materials found in nature. I believe the dust from post-penetrations is used as a replacement for ground-up unicorn horns. It stops spalling, yet spalls and destroys everything.
Truly, America is the best.
And China can just stay forgotten with its missing DTC-10E/S shell.
Every thread should just be talking about American tanks and American suffering and American Depleted Magic Uranium.
you’re welcome to keep shadowboxing with the periodic table
If that’s what you got from what I’ve been saying, it’s clear that my leaded tap water must be a lot better than whatever you got over there.
I didn’t “directly claimed DU wasn’t pyrophoric”, I just didn’t use the buzzword that you’re jerking on.
You’re just mad that I’ve read the article you posted and pointed exactly where you fumbled. It’s pretty evident that this is VERY important to you, that’s why you started your argument with an attack, lol.
They’re such goofs, “tHe US sHouLd dIsArm thIEr NukEs” and “nUkeS arE BAd”
It’s not a buzzword it’s the term for the physical property being described.
mate you said
implying that uranium has no inherent incendiary effect over other metals, when there’s an absolute wealth of research proving that it does, if I were you I’d just drop the ego and admit you were wrong
the shards don’t just “get insanely hot” they actually physically ignite and explode, that is what pyrophoric means and it’s been proven that DU has an increased incendiary effect on penetrating hits over tungsten projectiles
That claim goes hand to hand with the source you posted.
Thanks again!
what is vro yapping about
it clearly doesn’t, your post directly claims that it’s only heated metal and there is no incendiary effect when it’s wrong
Either the Abrams gets absolutely vaporized when penetrated because of its DU armor, but the shell has the same effect on its target - or the Abrams DU acts like a spall liner and reduces spall, but doesn’t have this magical nearly explosive effect.
it’s not magical it’s a chemical property of metals in the same group as uranium
magnesium and titanium are two more pyrophoric metals
