MEDELMA@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU (03/29/91)
From: MEDELMA@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU
As to the speculation whether small-arms rounds made of depleted uranium
could defeat body armor, the answer is of course. The practicalities of
making effective DU small arms ammunition are another problem.
1. Cost. DU is *much* more expensive than steel, lead and copper. It
may well not be cost effective to supply all your troops with DU rounds.
It may not even be possible.
2. Safety. DU is *slightly* radioactive. There may be a hazard in having
each soldier carry 600 rounds of it.
3. Practicality. Given the much greater mass of DU, if you simply made a
5.56mm DU bullet (with some sort of soft jacket to engage rifling- like
copper drive bands on large shells) the projectile would be so heavy
that you'd probably end up with muzzle velocities of well under 1,900fps.
(quick off-the-top-of-my-head calculation). You'd probably have to go to
something like a sub-caliber saboted round. Such a round would probably
have great penetration but might be less lethal. It would be so stable that
it would penetrate without any disruption.
Is such a round needed? Current NATO spec 5.56mm ammunition will already
penetrate all but the heaviest ceramic-backed body armor, and at least 1/4"
steel plate as well.
--mike edelman medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu medelma@waynest1.ranald@athena.mit.edu (Gregory L Yantz) (03/30/91)
From: ranald@athena.mit.edu (Gregory L Yantz) The reason the penetrators for APFSDS-type ammunition are made of DU or tundsten carbide is that, at the velocities they reach, a steel penetrator would shatter when it hit the target. This is usually not a problem with small-arms ammo. So why bother with the added expense of exotic materials when steel serves quite well?