It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fighter damage by cannon

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
E_T

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by stgeorge
...Reliability? You only have one Vulcan.

Don't forget gatling gun doesn't care about misfired rounds.




posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
It may not care about misfired rounds,but it does care about feeding.Especially when you are executing high Gee manoevers.
And we still have not standardized upon 20mm ammunition no matter what Nato says. No round or casing is exactly the same size or weight.
Do not tell me that any single one of your weapons systems does NOT jam.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by stgeorge
20mm,23mm,27mm,35mm,ect. Missiles are the way to go. Armour piercing rounds are expensive and difficult to make,I believe the armoured forces always getting priority in these.Tngsten rounds,few and far between.


This is where DU comes in. It's cheap(ish), machineable, fairly easy to use and DU rounds make good AP rounds. Tungten on the other hand, is extremely expensive and hard to machine.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit

Originally posted by stgeorge
20mm,23mm,27mm,35mm,ect. Missiles are the way to go. Armour piercing rounds are expensive and difficult to make,I believe the armoured forces always getting priority in these.Tngsten rounds,few and far between.


This is where DU comes in. It's cheap(ish), machineable, fairly easy to use and DU rounds make good AP rounds. Tungten on the other hand, is extremely expensive and hard to machine.


DU is essentially free. The only problem is it's a long-term poison that can affect the health of troops in areas where it's used, and the health of the civilian populace. The cost / benefit ratio of supplanting tungsten with DU does not work, not to mention the pain and suffering caused by spreading disintegrated uranium all over the place.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
DU is essentially free. The only problem is it's a long-term poison that can affect the health of troops in areas where it's used, and the health of the civilian populace. The cost / benefit ratio of supplanting tungsten with DU does not work, not to mention the pain and suffering caused by spreading disintegrated uranium all over the place.


It's essentially the same poisoning you would get if you used lead as a armour-penetrating round Despite the fact that it's possible to be poisoned from it's use, you shouldn't ban it as it's designed as a kinetic penetrator, designed primarily to kill, but conventionally. Until a cheaper option comes around, tough. I'd rather the troops were heavily-armed with more ammo.

In fact from what I remember DU is only generally used against Main Battle tanks with thickest armour. HE and/or HESH (HESH particularly) with a latest-generation tank is enough to defeat most lightly-armoured vehicles.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit

Originally posted by taibunsuu
DU is essentially free. The only problem is it's a long-term poison that can affect the health of troops in areas where it's used, and the health of the civilian populace. The cost / benefit ratio of supplanting tungsten with DU does not work, not to mention the pain and suffering caused by spreading disintegrated uranium all over the place.


It's essentially the same poisoning you would get if you used lead as a armour-penetrating round Despite the fact that it's possible to be poisoned from it's use, you shouldn't ban it as it's designed as a kinetic penetrator, designed primarily to kill, but conventionally. Until a cheaper option comes around, tough. I'd rather the troops were heavily-armed with more ammo.

In fact from what I remember DU is only generally used against Main Battle tanks with thickest armour. HE and/or HESH (HESH particularly) with a latest-generation tank is enough to defeat most lightly-armoured vehicles.



That's all fine and good man, but frankly you have no idea what you're talking about. Type Depleted Uranium into Google and read. It's great the troops have a cheap heavy penetrator but it's not so great for our troops to operate in battlefields dusted with Uranium-235, and it's not great for the people that live there afterward, either.

Type Depleted Uranium into Google and read. Saying that U-235 is as safe as lead is just as funny as a SABOT round made of cold butter.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Actually Mi-24 only looks like a tank, it is a very vulnerable helicopter.But Ka-50/52 is another story ...


The Army's experience in GWII has shown that modern gunships are rally vulnerable to ground fire. The Apaches did not fair as well esp when they flew over ground troops and took fire. Tactics will help somewhat, but as the grunts get more and better weapons esp RPG's the attack helicopter days are numbered IMHO.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
That's all fine and good man, but frankly you have no idea what you're talking about.



I know a bit about it. As far as I know, it's not radioactive, so it's the fact that it's a heavy metal that makes it dangerous, in a similar way that lead (I think I meant to use mercury, basically a poisonous heavy metal as an example) is a dangerous compund, right?

If that's the only case, then there is no argument. These weapons are designed to kill, we aren't designing happy meals.

What would be sensible though is training our crews to only use it when no other alternative exists (like no overkill, e.g. firing APDS rounds at cars.)

In fact the only thing the British forces use it in is tank rounds and we are very careful about accounting for spent rounds (all the way through the forces) so for the way we use it, I don't think it's a big deal. Besides, we clean up later...

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit

Originally posted by taibunsuu
That's all fine and good man, but frankly you have no idea what you're talking about.



I know a bit about it. As far as I know, it's not radioactive, so it's the fact that it's a heavy metal that makes it dangerous, in a similar way that lead (I think I meant to use mercury, basically a poisonous heavy metal as an example) is a dangerous compund, right?

If that's the only case, then there is no argument. These weapons are designed to kill, we aren't designing happy meals.

What would be sensible though is training our crews to only use it when no other alternative exists (like no overkill, e.g. firing APDS rounds at cars.)

In fact the only thing the British forces use it in is tank rounds and we are very careful about accounting for spent rounds (all the way through the forces) so for the way we use it, I don't think it's a big deal. Besides, we clean up later...



Well of course the DU rounds are designed to kill. No one expects tanks to shoot sandbags. The only problem is that they continue to be harmful after the conflict. And yes, DU is radioactive. Note that the SABOT rounds are encased in stainless steel over the DU.

From my time in the military I have two anecdotes about DU in peacetime. One, a Recon Marine sustained shrapnel injury in the First Gulf War when an A-10 accidentally strafed his convoy. He took a shard in the forearm and recieves checkups every six months to check for cancer. That was back in about '94. Another, armor on an Abrams was damaged from a live-fire excerise where a 155mm artillery shell actually hit the tank, exposing the chobam armor. The crew was shaken (tank was buttoned) but alive. They had to evacuate the tank and a hazmat team cleared the tank.

This FAS page has a lot of information on it. DU is essentially free because it's a byproduct of uranium enrichment that would otherwise have to be stored in nuclear waste dumps!

www.fas.org...

Just visit that site and learn about it if you have interest in DU.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Ah, I forgot the US forces use it as armour too..



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join