GAU-8/A DU Rounds?

[Eddie]

Strange, i'm pretty sure those 80+ million ak-47's and their 7.62x39 killed more :huh:

 

Or the .303 & .306 calibre rounds used in the majority of rifles and machine guns during WWI.

 

It's entirely possible that a round such as the .22LR causes the largest number of accidental/criminal fatalities over a given period (especially in the US), but saying it's the round responsible for the "most human deaths" is a bit of a stretch.

 

Of course the whole argument seems to have been initiated by G-locks interpretation of "effective", the simple case is that from a military viewpoint API rounds are not considered "effective" against dismounted infantry.

[G-Lock91]

Strange, i'm pretty sure those 80+ million ak-47's and their 7.62x39 killed more :huh:

 

Just because a weapon was mass produced doesn't automatically make the round it shoots a #1 killer. Where would you put the 7.62 X54R? The Mauser? Ugh, this is way off the OP's topic. PM if ya wanna continue :megalol:

[G-Lock91]

Of course the whole argument seems to have been initiated by G-locks interpretation of "effective", the simple case is that from a military viewpoint API rounds are not considered "effective" against dismounted infantry.

 

Not "effective" or Not "cost effective" :thumbup:

[Weaponz248]

For the record API(DU) do not explode. They instead "melt" a hole in the tanks armor theroitically allowing the HEI inside to cause some damage. With that said a API round hitting the body directly will leave a mark. However since the GAU-8 is not a sniper rifle chances are slim it will work that way. HEI on the other hand is like lobing hande gernades at the target so very very effective!

[SmokeyTheLung]

API, at least the PGU-14 fired by the a GAU8 has no HEI content... It's a regular 30mm projo with a sub-caliber depleted uranium penetrator. DU is phyrophoric, so it can light things on fire and sends out a lot of sparks when hitting hardened objects, but there is no explosive

[Sceptre]

For the record API(DU) do not explode. They instead "melt" a hole in the tanks armor theroitically allowing the HEI inside to cause some damage. With that said a API round hitting the body directly will leave a mark. However since the GAU-8 is not a sniper rifle chances are slim it will work that way. HEI on the other hand is like lobing hande gernades at the target so very very effective!

 

But how come in DCS BS2, you can destroy an Abrams M1A2 tank with a short burst of the 24A2 API rounds?

[Weaponz248]

But how come in DCS BS2, you can destroy an Abrams M1A2 tank with a short burst of the 24A2 API rounds?

 

I don't know anything about that rounds but a quick guess would be its not a DU round..........

[CoachA10]

I think CM is a 5:1 ratio, not 4:1 as mentioned here.

[Sierra99]

AP is all but useless against infantry, and a lot less effective against soft-skin trucks

 

Which brings up the question...what would training rounds do? I mean yeah they don't blow up...And no they don't glow in the dark... But if ya take one in the chest, I'm pretty sure ya don't have to worry about anymore birthdays...

 

If you knew all you were going to attack was infantry... Would training rounds do the job? Are the ballistics the same?

 

Gadgets

[GGTharos]

They'd probably kick up a bunch of shrapnel, but they're really not as effective as the HEI's against infantry. You're simply not very likely to hit someone with them.

 

If you knew all you were going to attack was infantry... Would training rounds do the job? Are the ballistics the same?

 

Gadgets

[Sceptre]

Which brings up the question...what would training rounds do? I mean yeah they don't blow up...And no they don't glow in the dark... But if ya take one in the chest, I'm pretty sure ya don't have to worry about anymore birthdays...

 

If you knew all you were going to attack was infantry... Would training rounds do the job? Are the ballistics the same?

 

Gadgets

I can take out BTR-80s and T-72s with TP rounds in DCS and they look badass at night!

[OutOnTheOP]

Yes, but you can also take out a BMP or BTR with a .50 cal. I suspect even .338 Lapua has enough energy to penetrate significant portions of the BTR. At close range, I'm almost certain 7.62x51 SLAP rounds will penetrate as well. It's not as if the TP rounds are made out of plastic and dissipate into fairy dust when they hit something; I'm pretty sure they're made of solid steel. The "Target Practice" bit doesn't mean they're safe, or that they're designed to shoot at troops during training exercises. They're used for training instead of HEI or AP because they're CHEAP (also, not being made of DU is nice... though the safety concerns of DU are blown out of proportion. A banana is more radioactive; DU is bad because DU oxides cause heavy metal poisoning. For what it's worth, they have basically the same health risks as lead bullets, for which the lead oxide ALSO causes heavy metal poisoning)

 

Anyhow, the fact remains that with HEI, a near miss is good enough; with AP or TP, you need to hit the guy directly. Just not nearly as effective; you don't get the density of impacts to be truly effective.

 

...at least, not against an area target, where you open fire from much further in the hopes of getting some dispersion. I suppose if you really, REALLY wanted, you could use the GAU-8 as the world's largest sniper rifle and really drill one dude from very close range. So I suppose it would be useful against a mortar team or crew served machine gun, but still not a fraction as effective as proper HEI.

 

When it comes down to it, against infantry, a 30mm AP or TP round is no more effective than a 7.62mm ball round. If you hit the target directly with either, they're a casualty and out of the fight. If you miss them, it does no good whatsoever.

Edited June 8, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[shagrat]

I think CM is a 5:1 ratio, not 4:1 as mentioned here.

Nope! every fifth round is PG-13 (HEI) which is a ratio of 4:1 :smartass:

 

1. PG-14 (API)

2. PG-14 (API)

3. PG-14 (API)

4. PG-14 (API)

5. PG-13 (HEI)

6. PG-14 (API)

...

[shagrat]

though the safety concerns of DU are blown out of proportion. A banana is more radioactive; DU is bad because DU oxides cause heavy metal poisoning. For what it's worth, they have basically the same health risks as lead bullets, for which the lead oxide ALSO causes heavy metal poisoning)

 

You are right about the dust. The problem is the metal dust is radioactive, not much (usually exagerated by the media), but enough to have an effect on tissue it is in contact with. So you may like to put some of that "low radioactive dust" near your balls, won't you? :D

 

As well if inhaled or swallowed it has a severe effect to your intestines especially the lungs. Basically you highly increase the cancer risk!

Unfortunately, I guess it is the blue army guys that clean up the enemy tanks from ammunition or weapons, etc. in the first place?

 

That is why these DU rounds are not the best idea to use if not necessary, means where ever you NOT have Tanks to bust.

 

Just my two cent.:music_whistling:

 

EDIT. To make that clear: The larger danger, comes from the metal oxides poisonous effects, but in combination both are highly cancerous, that is why they are discussed a lot.

The real myth is that the inert rounds are "radioactive" - they are not! As you said: they are as dangerous as a banana :lol:

Edited June 8, 2012 by shagrat

[Sierra99]

AP or TP round is no more effective than a 7.62mm ball round. If you hit the target directly with either, they're a casualty and out of the fight. If you miss them, it does no good whatsoever.

 

So it more a matter of frag effect than actually "hitting" a target that takes them out of the fight... I am understanding completely now!

[Jona33]

If a DU round's just hit you I think there's more to worry about than cancer.

[shagrat]

If a DU round's just hit you I think there's more to worry about than cancer.

That's obvious :lol: you may hit somebody with a one inch stone accelerated to 300m/sec and he is done for. The point is about the DU rounds hitting your garden wall or the like and your two year old daughter inhaling the dust, next morning when the wind blows. At the age of 7 getting leukaemia or a nice lung cancer and slowly dying over the next decade.

That is why it is a good idea to use them when it is necessary, only! Even the term necessary needs careful thinking, in my point of you. But that is something we needn't bother in the sim :thumbup:

[Harzach]

...though the safety concerns of DU are blown out of proportion. A banana is more radioactive...

 

Not sure where you got that information, but the IAEA disagrees. Regarding the relative dangers of DU, however, the general consensus does seem to be that the chemical effects are of an enormously greater concern.

[OutOnTheOP]

Oh REALLY? They do? Because on IAEA's DU FAQ at http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/du/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml, it says:

 

"DU does not add significantly to the normal background radiation that people encounter ever day. It is weakly radioactive. For example, DU is 3 million times less radioactive than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times less radioactive than what is used in fire detectors."

 

"It is a common misconception that radioactivity is the main health hazard of DU rather than chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage. "

 

"a) Practically all (98%) DU entering the body is excreted and never reaches the blood stream. b)Of the fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood, around 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days"

 

"The most definitive study of DU exposure is of Gulf War veterans who have embedded DU shrapnel in their bodies that cannot be removed. To date none has developed any health abnormalities due to uranium chemical toxicity or radio toxicity."

 

Though I'll admit that the banana bit was a bit of an estimate; DU is more radioactive; HOWEVER, radioactive potassium is readily absorbed by the body, while DU is most certainly not

Edited June 8, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[Sceptre]

Shagrat said that the media exaggerates the poisonous dust.

 

They also exaggerated something in an A-10 documentary I sat the other day. They said that "On round from the GAU-8 is enough to completely annihilate a main battle tank."

 

 

I don't think that's true, is it?

 

They also said that "many of the A-10C's systems are still classified."

 

As we know, that is obviously not true:P

I can't remember what the show was called, but it did have some good footage of A-10s in combat.

[OutOnTheOP]

Oh REALLY? They do? Because on IAEA's DU FAQ at http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/du/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml, it says:

 

 

"DU does not add significantly to the normal background radiation that people encounter ever day. It is weakly radioactive. For example, DU is 3 million times less radioactive than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times less radioactive than what is used in fire detectors."

 

 

"It is a common misconception that radioactivity is the main health hazard of DU rather than chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage. "

 

 

"a) Practically all (98%) DU entering the body is excreted and never reaches the blood stream. b)Of the fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood, around 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days"

 

 

"The most definitive study of DU exposure is of Gulf War veterans who have embedded DU shrapnel in their bodies that cannot be removed. To date none has developed any health abnormalities due to uranium chemical toxicity or radio toxicity."

 

 

Though I'll admit that the banana bit was a bit of an estimate; DU is more radioactive, in terms of Becquerels per gram; HOWEVER, radioactive potassium is readily absorbed by the body, while DU is most certainly not. Perhaps a better example would have been limestone, which is active (due to radium 226 content) at about 0.42 microCuries per gram, comparable to the 0.40 microCuries per gram for depleted uranium. I didn't bother to crunch the numbers, as they weren't the point: the fact that DU is not a significant source of radiation compared to natural background levels was the point.

 

At any rate, it's less radioactive than plenty of everyday objects we store around the house (and less radioactive than the naturally-occuring ore from which it is extracted), which is the point I was trying to make.

Edited June 8, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

Wierd, why on earth did it post a new reply when I hit edit?

[Panzertard]

Please try to stay on topic for this forum, please keep in mind this is a flight sim community.

We won't need detailed analysis of fission and what was produced where, how and why.

If it's related to the Sim - good.

If it's going beyond the boundaries of this community, then it doesn't belong here.

 

And don't be afraid to ask if you're unsure, we can be polite ;)

(except GG that is - but I'm training him).

[Sceptre]

Please try to stay on topic for this forum, please keep in mind this is a flight sim community.

We won't need detailed analysis of fission and what was produced where, how and why.

If it's related to the Sim - good.

If it's going beyond the boundaries of this community, then it doesn't belong here.

 

And don't be afraid to ask if you're unsure, we can be polite ;)

(except GG that is - but I'm training him).

 

Roger that.

 

My initial question was "can DCS A-10C have only AP rounds in the gun?" and that has been answered.

 

Thanks guys!

[Harzach]

You said bananas were more radioactive and I called you on it.

 

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/du/du_qaa.shtml#q3

 

DU is 14.8 Bq/mg compared to a banana's 0.00013 Bq/mg, making DU only 113,846 times more radioactive. So, yes - the IAEA does not agree with your assertion. This was my sole point, beyond which I was implying nothing.