Why The M1 Abrams Uses Depleted Uranium
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 гру 2020
- Despite its appearance, the M1 Abrams is actually a fairly unique main battle tank. Aside from its gas turbine engine, one of its more interesting and controversial aspects is its use of depleted uranium, both for its armor and its ammunition. The US began using depleted uranium (DU) armor on the M1A2, and has been using it ever since. There are some common misconceptions about DU, about both its effects and why it's used in the first place. DU probably won't give you cancer but it's still dangerous.
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Songs used (in order from first to last):
WH40K Mechanicus - Dance of the Cryptek
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=2750276
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: / discord
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#m1abrams #tankhistory #warthunder - Ігри
DU is also used for a variety of commercial and military applications. Most notably, DU is used in some air to ground munitions. It's believed that this DU is responsible for a variety of birth defects and other serious medical issues in areas where the US military operates.
Do you think there should be more east german vehicles? If so will you do a video on it
@@joshuarosenberg4067 I support this message.
To also add a common, and unknown use: In commercial airlines, it's used as ballast to balance out heavy cargo.
You havent heard a Serb talk about the effects of DU.
hey just very quick tag on DU is often taken from nuclear powerplants who would refine it and would love for anyone to take it off them
“To someone who doesn’t have an unhealthy obsession with armored fighting vehicles” lmfao
wait? there are people not obsessed with armoured fighting vehicles?
@@matthiuskoenig3378 lol no one on this channel I imagine
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Flyboys, duh.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Of course, someone that has an unhealthy obsession with airborne fighting vehicles of course
Haha yeah that hit me too. Is this like a personal attack or something?
"Depleted uranium is still dangerous"
Well even if it wasnt radioactive i still dont think a chuck of metal soaring at you shot by a tank is very safe at all
Fair Point
Its more of a problem when towns, villiages, and water supplies are littered with du particulates
@@CCRUEnthusist I was making an unfunny joke but okay
it is a heavy metal and is still very toxic, regardless of whether or not its radioactive.
With a half life of 4.5 billion years you'd essentially need to replace your whole body with it to get any sort of appreciable dose. It's basically the least radioactive thing that's still radioactive.
A fun fact for you from a former M1A2 SEPv2 crewman, we don't use DU penetrators for training. Instead we use the M865 TPCSDS-T (Target Practice Cone Stabilized Discarding Sabot w/ Tracer) which is a steel projectile. This way target ranges don't need to be regularly cleaned to prevent environmental damage.
And its probably cheaper aswell.
@@hanfpeter2822 Absolutely.
Ah, so there is some radioactivity? DU is maybe not as clean as it is claimed to be?
@@gulliverthegullible6667 well when you are firing thousands of rounds in a concentrated area it’s bound to cause environmental damage...
@@SirHuddy there must be a reason why some countries are using the much more expensive wolfram ammunition, which has a similar effect but no radiation.
The reason depleted uranium is used as ammunition and armor is the same reason I'm an idiot. We're both dense
this cannot be true, if you were dense you couldn't have made such an amusing self depricating joke
Oof
@@matthiuskoenig3378 please shoot me out of a cannon at over 1000 m/s at your nearest enemy armored fighting vehicle
And cheap?
However you're self sharpening?
(Walks away in joke ruiner)
Ooo self burn,
*URANNNIUM FEVER!!!*
ITS GONE AND GOT ME DOOWN
URANNIUM FEVER
@@teafortom582 ITs SPREADING ALL AROUND
WITH A GEIGER COUNTER IN MY HAND
Imma go and stake me some government land
Short answer; its common, very dense, self sharpening and potentially sets the inside of the target vehicle on fire!
It does, but there's been numerous stories and reports of crews being rendered into paste after taking a DU round from an Abrams.
@@Tienhamir100 So just like a tungsten or steel round?
@@Narvaljodchik
DU rounds are a whole different monster.
Look it up!
That's the fun in this after all!
@@MR_6238 go outside
@@MR_6238 when refrencing self sharpening that just means it dosent mushroom as much cause it sheers off therefore maintaing more energy as it impacts multiple layers due to its smaller diameter since there is less mushrooming which means its not spreading KE over a wider surface area
most important part is that DU is cheap, plentiful, and otherwise useless, while tungsten is hella expensive and important for industrial use. the fact that DU is slightly better as armor/projectile is just a bonus
DU may be cheap.... But a DUI is Expensive AF. KNOW THE DIFFERENCE and STAY SAFE
The grim ending note can basically be summed up as "war is a dirty business that requires pragmatism to stay ahead".
Yeah but at the same time it gives Gaijin cooler shit to put in war thunder so who cares
So what, should we all just start using biological and chemical weaponry?
@@HowIsAsh no bad
@@termitreter6545 have you heard of the great and cool GENIVA CONVENTIONS
btw may have missspelled it
@@wilmerreinholdsson1181 yeah, you did misspell it. It's actually Geneva. Nice try, tho.
0:19 "Boss, you killed another child..."
*That right there is why you're the best boss! The one and only!*
S++
*Amazing!*
"I'm already a demon Kaz"
*Amazing! Mission complete, that right there is why you are the best, boss!*
Lead, tungsten, du, I'm starting to think war is immoral.
Good vid, btw, informative, while also leaving a useful note that goes beyond "objective" facts.
It never have been, war never changes.
always has been immoral
War. It's fantastic. 😁
Always has been
A study actually came out three years ago about how tungsten is actually more dangerous to people than previously thought “Tungsten or Wolfram: Friend or Foe”. They’re both heavy metals and those and biological things don’t mix well, so the ecological concerns of one versus another almost negligible
Guy were firing cannons at people, the objective is to kill. It's kinda like how obsurd it is that possession of a hollow point in jersey is a felony. Like a 9×19 can't kill unless it's a hollow point. The argument could be made that's it's more humane. Quicker death and all.
@@mikewaterfield3599 it’s more after the war is over and the DU tungsten potentially gets in the water supply that people are worried about. And fragments of the material being embedded in people and giving them cancer/disabilities after the war. Or causes increased birth defects like agent orange
@@captainfactoid3867 He said in the video that there are no known cases of DU fragments embedded in people causing cancer.
@@jic1 more due to limited sample size and luck on those imbedded
@@captainfactoid3867 That "limited sample size" is the main reason I think this is of minimum concern: militaries do not discharge a lot of either DU or tungsten, they are expensive and only of benefit against heavily-armored targets. Sure, theoretically it's possible that there will be large-scale tank battles somewhere in the future, but that's going to be a local environmental disaster whatever ammunition is used. Just think about the smoke and spilled diesel alone.
3:07 if that guy hadn't shot, he wouldn't have been seen and could've possibly repaired.
I noticed that too, he made a big big mistake
I personally notice that people will constantly fire their machine guns as a last resort, so he probably thought the stryker couldve seen him with thermals anyways.
@@flameshot0983 Oh for sure. It's easy to make the right choice when you have all the information, but that bmp-3, unlike us, didn't. I loved the way the shadows concealed him though; Probably my favorite thing about night battles with the new flare in the sky feature.
@@plantenthusiast3052 Night battles still have a long way to go before they aren't as annoying such as maybe ya know, let us use the headlights on the tanks, give us ambient light in city maps like with the street lights, or remove the just dark enough for flare but bright enough for no nvd maps.
@@flameshot0983 Have you tried using postfx/tone mapping/reinhard?
Hi spookston, how’s it going?
I'm alright, how are you
@@Spookston doing fantastic, thanks for asking.
Wholesome 100
Wholesome 100 chungus reddit moment
@@Bigma_Industries The fact that the most normal shit will get people to call it wholesome is depressing.
0:30
>spew radiation
Yes... thats why it's depleted uranium, not enriched uranium.
You're expecting an activist to know the difference. :P
DU is still radioactive, it's just uranium toxicity kills you faster upon ingestion of the dust than the alpha radiation could ever hope to. Even EU isn't _that_ radioactive, it's not like it's radioiodine, or other nasty stuff with a short half life and tendency to spit out lots of gamma. But you still wouldn't want to deal with an area where tanks with DU ammo and armour had been fighting without protective equipment, and you definitely wouldn't want to eat food grown there or drink water from nearby without filtration.
gives those iraqi kids birth defects all the same /shrug
@@Crosshair84 Oh look , a nerd with not much to do with life knows so much about arms , I wonder why 🤔
@@kauske Youd be surprised then. Because of the US main nuclear testing sight within the states. Its harmful fallout was spread by wind currents. In an unrelated note, cancer began to skyrocket around that time. Oh... maybe its not that unrelated.
And yes, the fallout was harmful. Its contents were pretty radioactive and they conducted hundreds of tests and number of cancer patients in the US grew during those years.
You should've stressed how DU makes it super-dangerous to screw around tank wrecks because you are inevitably going inhale some dust with DU particles in it. That's the real danger, not radiation.
And that's how the Iraqi civilians ended up getting those effects that they got, screwing around with stuff our DU rounds from all our heavy weapons platforms and such knocked out.
Lead does the same. Lookup the origins of "Mad Hatter" and the mercury poisoning from it. Heavy metals are not something you want inside you, especially in a strong concentration.
@@Cragified Let me correct that, you dont want ANYTHING in your body thats above the safe dose. You can literally die from drinking too much water.
Iron poisoning exists even tho we have it in our blood.
Copper runs in our liver.
Iodine in our neck. Thyroid gland.
Potassium in our muscles.
Calcium in our bones.
Carbon in literally everything.
Chlorine in our nerves.
Literally overdose on the elements mentioned above, and you gonna have an awful day.
@@ArmedSpaghet The implied point is that it does not matter what the projectiles were made of. All heavy metals are toxic be it lead or tungsten. Combined with the hundreds of not thousands of chemicals created from a burned out vehicle it isn't good. DU isn't the problem as U238 is quite common in the soil, especially NA.
Do you have to wear gloves when handling depleted uranium like lead?
The danger comes from after the projectile has done that self-sharpening into a tank and sprayed the wreckage and area with particulates. The flames and wind will then spread the particulate matter in the air around the wreck. The round itself is perfectly safe before firing.
just imagine grinding tungsten into dust and then snorting it
now try depleted uranium
does it matter? not really, and right now, nobody cares or wants to put out studies and inform the general public enough to care
@@fulccrum2324 Politicians are afraid of Vietnam War effect. You know when people protested against the war. Its easier to tell people we are fighting to save our way of life. What people don't realize is our way of life is fine, and we should not kill others half way across the world for our way of life. Surprisingly it the other side that's fighting for their way of life not US.
When the americans stop fighting isis happens. You need to read up on your history bro.
@@gotanon8958 america litterally created them under obama mandate in the syrian civail war. They were fihthing bachar el assad and nato countries called them moderate islamics and so they provided them food, equipements, weapons ...
@@gotanon8958 You are obviously a product of Hollywood brainwashing. Isis has been created, financed and trained by the CIA.
1:22 "[DU] is only slightly less dense than tungsten." This is a very misleading sentence. Yes, DU is less dense than tungsten. However, regular ol' tungsten is not used for ammunition. Tank ammunition is made using tungsten carbide, which has a density of about ~16g/cm^3 vs DU's ~19g/cm^3(DU ammunition isn't pure DU either though)
True, though both are actually alloyed with other metals. US tungsten ammunition from the 40s through the early 70s, was tungsten carbide with a cobalt binder. USSR from the 40s through the early 80s used tungsten carbide with nickel binder. In the early 70s with the change to L52/M728 apds, the US used tungsten nickel copper alloy for a short time. But, with the development of xm578 through m735, the US was using a class 4 Tungsten nickel iron alloy, with a density of about 18,500kg/m3. M774 and M833 were both developed in the late 70s, using Uranium-titanium alloy, which was used for all US apfsds until the 90s.
The reason the M1 Abrams uses a gas turbine engine is the service life is many times longer than a diesel engine. And it is cheaper to work on. It also makes more power than a diesel engine.
It's service life is longer if maintained properly a diesel is more forgiving, and both engines produce more power at different rpms anyway, turbines at low speed are absolutely horrendous for fuel consumption to power output, especially compared to a diesel. I have a feeling turbines will ultimately be the standard in the future just because there shear power output
@@lonesurvivalist3147 I was about to say, a diesel will always perform better fuel wise at low rpm
I don't agree very much. otherwise trivially on cars you would find turbine engines. diesel is more efficient if a good engine. They keep the turbine for more motives because you have less problems in temperature excursions with fuels, because it is tested, because a turbine engine costs more ... the turbine has problems at low rpms
I'm thinking the M1 turbine engine is a multi fuels which means what ever kind of fuel you have can be run in it.
I'm pretty sure the actual reason is just that the abrams was designed right before the compact ultra high power turbodiesels were figured out, so all the tanks that came out right after the abrams got turbodiesels because they make as much power as the turbine when your working at the scale of less than a MW or so.
with some quick googling, the leapard 2 for example has twin turbochargers with intercoolers, and the engine block is liquid cooled so is can go to higher sustained power without melting the engine. and it's a 48L V12, with the same 1.1MW power output as the turbine on the abrams, while burning around half the fuel.
People: isn't this dangerous?
US: Well no but actually yes
i think they can say "no" only if they take consider people as a stupid herd..
@@divinehatred6021 should only use lead much safer to drink
0:19
Boss, you killed a child
It's totally not a stolen comment
*SPOOKSTON, YOU KILLED A CHILD*
That there is why you are the best Spookston!
_it was either me or him_
"Boss you killed a child"
@@sargesacker2599 fixed it
@@drybeans0000 hawdyawn7d ngaw
The Abroomz uses DU because backwards it spells UD and UD stands for U Dead
or Radiation shower for all crews in enemy tank
I wouldn’t suggest inhaling any kind of heavy metal
Useful advice
@@revolverswitch 😂😂❤
I cant believe people dont already know these things. Its honestly annoying when i see people misinterpret information on Main Battle Tanks, it absolutely grinds my gears.
how about grinding your turret ring instead?
ha ha tank joke
@@fulccrum2324 Turret goes grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhhh
@@SONNENKVLT *nods sagely* (whatever that means :p) indeed
How about grinding your transmission instead?
Ha ha tank joke (I copied the other guy, but with slight twist)
@@Oof-th5hz just gonna turn this into "anything that causes friction works as well" while we're at it
:)
Ok topic idea: The worlds most environmentally friendly tanks.
I'm gonna go with a "none" on that one, chief.
Tanks and environmental friendliness don't go hand it hand. Scratch that: wars and environmental friendliness don't go hand in hand.
Most environmentally friendly? How about fusion battlemech with fusion mothership capable of launching planet busters? Can't be environmentally destructive if you can make entire environments disappear with the push of a button...
@@BlueSkyCountry Ahhhhh finally a weapon to surpass Metal Gear!
Panzer 1
"Depleted Uranium Shells are ready, General"
"green is good"
“Keep the cylinders oiled”
“ I have many bullets to spare!”
The best way to avoid contaminating land via heavy metals, such as lead, tungsten or for that matter, depleted uranium, is to avoid fighting a high intensity conflict (where such strong penetrator metals are needed) in the same area for a long period of time. The best way to do so is to win that war decisively. To do so, you often need to win battles decisvely. And if such a battle is an armored engagemnt, the best way is by maximising enemy losses while minimizing yours. The best way to do so in an Abrams, is to use depleted uranium.
War is horrible and will remain horrible. The best way to make war less horrible is to make it as short as possible.
The best way to make war less horrible is to avoid it in the first place. Nowadays, the US has created plenty of enemies around the world because of this kind of twisted morality, your military pragmatism. DU is toxic for both soldiers and civilians fighting the conflict, and should not be used by an army who is supposedly agaimst governmets using chemical and mass destruction weapons.
Short my ass look at Ukraine technology has made the stalemate of war even worse
I disagree, if a war is too short the consequences might last forever.
I was a fire control captain in Abrams that went through Kuwait in the first Gulf War and I gotta tell you this is the absolute most detailed video on Abrams I’ve ever seen
MOM, DAD, IM ON TV!!!
Congratulation Son
@@executivedarts5874 Wait wait.. Wouldn't you be the grandfather?
His old age is messing with his head
We’re is m60🧐
@@darkhammer2078 I'd ask where is MBT-70
Do I hear omnissiah children In the back ground? I see that you are a man of culture as well
That's why I'm here.
@@YourTechpriest oh holy tech priest of the omnissiah, I thank thee for commenting on my humble post
@@theicelandicnationalist2.023 May the Omnissiah bless your cogitator.
@@YourTechpriest oh thank thee o holy servant of the glorious omnissiah
engage the linkage omnissiah
2:37 I think the U.S went to far. I mean, a floating tank? Why?
We now truly have a technological edge over the near peers...
Isnt that a Striker with a cannon turret tho ?
@@henrycooper3431 there are different versions of the Stryker.
Not sure of the validity of it but when my dad was a scout in the army, he refused to send his men to “confirm” tank kills made by abrams his unit was attached to. Didn’t want his men to risk breathing in DU particulates, even with their hazard gear.
China also has a monopoly of the world's tungsten reserves, making it even rarer.
And you probably don't want to rely on an enemy nation that engages in the practices of slavery and concentration camps for your war materiel.
That's just retarded.
Then I guess Germany is retarded.
@@UNSC-Saratoga always has been
@@UNSC-Saratoga Merkel is most likely a CCP sheep
@@UNSC-Saratoga yes
That a very good question
The have the best Canon in the world: The hight velocity slim L45 Canon.
Why they don't use the uranium and increase the pen.
Because, most of the tungsten that used Germany in the past came from France and Spain. But now came from China
Why Germany,why?
"The US military doesn't care about the ecological impact..."
Not their job to.
Yeah we do, nuclear power is very green. Not to mention our conventionally powered vessels have excellent exhaust filtration (it makes them harder to detect and track).
Not any military's job to
Any military that puts "wokeness" above pure efficiency is guaranteed to lose the next war.
@@mikewaterfield3599 I'm quoting Spookston here, mate. My point is that it's ridiculous and absurd to complain about a *military* not being overly concerned with environmental issues. It's not their job to do so, their job is to win wars. Any positive environmentalism that comes from the military is and must always be a secondary benefit, as you've demonstrated.
@@lesthodson2802 yeah, the most a millitary should do is to have exhaust filtration in peacetime and not make a mess by dumping oil, gas, diesel and other things
Really good video, clearing up several wrong things that are used to be "common knowlage". Also the comparison on how dangerous tungsten alone is was really well made.
To be fair, if you're in a situation where depleted uranium particles are coming off an Abrams, you probably have more immediate health concerns that the carcinogenicity of the local drinking water.
0:20 i saw that poor bt-5 and was like "YOU BETTER NO-" *shoots it * "....not...."
BT-5: exists
Spookston: 'bout to end this mans whole career.
not the dog!
DU tank ammo is also used by British army, in their Challenger tanks, and highly likely is used by Russian army - at least in ZBM42 ammo, IIRC.
3BM36 Vant
3BM59 Svinets-1
3BM60 Svinets-2
Are Russian DU
Fun fact: the A10 Warthog uses depleted uranium rounds for the same reasons
It did but but not after the first gulf it switch to Tungsten and now that’s basically fallen out of favour . As it didn’t get any tank kills with its gun and it was realised it would be better have the gun use ammo best against soft targets.
@@kekistanimememan170 Yeah because Iraqi Civilians are usually unarmored
@@kekistanimememan170 You never saw or visited the Highway of Death ( western 5th ring road) in Kuwait, did you?
Dozens of BTRs, Bumps, T54-55's, T 64's and T 72's turned to swiss cheese by A10 and Apaches with DU rounds... not mention all the DU sabot 2nd Cav used during 73 Easting ...all that stuff was "Hot".
I went back to Kuwait as,a contractor in 93. It took us and the other companies over 4 years to clean up and move all the vehicles to a consolidated junk yard. After the 3rd or 4th vehicle showing 30 mm holes, we brought out the radiological gear and tested everything. The ones that were "hot" we used dozers and construction grapplers to move onto flatbeds, which got tarped and moved separately.
@@richwalter3107 highway 80 was barely attacked by a10s and instead was started by a6 intruders
TL;DW
"It kills better."
Funny enough the Navy went the other way. The Phalanx Block 0 close in weapons system back in 1979 was able to use 20mm DU APDS. Because of its toxic nature the Navy requested to drop the use of DU so from Block 1 Phalanx 1988 onwards it uses Tungsten APDS and Phalanx can no longer fire DU at all by design
It would honestly make way more sense to use tungsten for anti anything with little to no armor. It would put more of a pushing force destabilizing the target on top of the fact that getting shot in the first place also already did that.
"The US Military doesnt care about ecological impact"
What Military does in war my dude?
All the militaries that dont use depleted uranium shells for exactly that reason. Its probably too long that they didnt fight at home for americans to understand that people live in those places.
Or heck, you ever heard of world war 3? Part of why that didnt happen was ecological impact. Aka making this planet a much worse place to live on.
@@termitreter6545 pretty sure ww3 hasnt happened not cause of ecological impact but the death toll that would come from it. The reason why other militaries don't use it is cause they cant afford it or are most likely protected by the US or some NATO nation. I promise the military doesn't care about ecological impact. If they did wars wouldnt happen.
@@slice1419 Mate, you ever heard of the thing called "nuclear winter"? The US government might not give a shit, but the people voting for it still kinda care about their cities being turned into nuclear wasteland.
@@termitreter6545 It has nothing to do with the US government Im WELL aware of Nuclear Winters and what not Im saying that MILITARIES around the world could give a rats ass about the environment. Its the loss of life, property damage and cost of rebuilding that keeps people pushing the red button and MAD act there mate. When it comes to war the everything else is forgotten except for winning and staying alive long enough to tell the tale.
Militaries that fight on their own soil do.
I had this idea for awhile but I never mentioned it. I'm so glad you posted it thank you.
Actually pirophosporic is very important, irl uranium rounds couses fire inside tank without hitting ammo with 73% probability and tungsten has only 38%
75% of statistics are made on the spot
100% of the time the crew doesnt care if they are hit with burning superheated metal or just superheated metal
Regarding health issues. I've heard from a lot of Abrams tankers that they've become sterile, lost hair and gotten cancer but these reports are very far and uncommon. More research should be done because there are some signs of side effects.
The effect isn't instantaneous. Cancer rates spike later, after a decade or more.
Nice video as always, keep it up!
You're onto something about the radiation from DU as well, I've been thinking about it too.
2:48 Composite armor < Log
100 mm wooden equivalent
I was just eating biscuits and this popd up.
I hope you were enjoying some *DEPLETED URANIUM* biscuits.
What's your CT number trooper?
@@xXFaTaLPwNaGe RC-7302 , sir.
@@clonetroop7295 All aboard the gunship
"Poped" lol.. I laughed.
"Who cares if we destroyed the enemy tank, we might be hurting somebody's drinking water. WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
@Cal Dev well to be fair a bomb is pretty quick and painless compared to radiation poisoning.
Few things put a smile on my face like a new Spookston video. Keep up the good work!
Short, simple, and gets to the point. Very informative!
Can we get an F in the chat for that poor BT-7 that got curb stomped at the start
f
Make sure to separate your non-recyclable materials from the wreckage of the enemy mbt before you leave the battlefield
this was so well paced and written. thank you for the learning
this video is next lvl informative. great job! well done!
I love this, but the “unhealthy obsession with armored fighting vehicles” part sounded a lot like a haha so quirky moment, like the war thunder version of “I’m weird I watch murder documentaries”
I'm going to say this in regards to 'environmental impact' when it comes to weapons of war:
If you are using said weapon in the first place, odds are you have larger, more immediate concerns than possible water supply contamination down the line.
Put bluntly, almost EVERY metal is toxic to the human body, and to the bodies of most animals. One of the unfortunate realities of war, is that the usage of 1 'more dangerous/environmentally damaging' munition, is usually better than having to use 5x that in other munitions to do the same job, just from an ecological standpoint, god forbid we look at lives lost and compare numbers there.
The deployment of nukes against Japan, as an example, was judged (at the time of deployment, and it's still a debate that RAGES to this day) to be less costly in both short and long run than a traditional invasion. The aim of using the nuclear devices wasn't to take a ton of lives in and of itself, but an attempt to break morale so that more lives weren't lost and more damage done to the environment in continuing conflict.
Yea the firebombing was worse so to ur point the juke was bad but better than continuing the firebombing campaign
Sure, but you could imagine, far out as it may be, that if you are, shall we say, "liberating" a country from an unpopular dictatorship, you probably don't want the civilians of that country to hate you a decade later for causing birth defects in their children and poisoning their environment. They might not greet you as liberators anymore after that.
Those two cities were simply chosen to test the effect of nuclear weapons and its radiation on people, it was more of a scientific experiment than legitimate military targets. In nowadays view, a war crime. If somebody does not agree, I suggest to visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. There could have been other methods to end the war, especially because, there wasn't a prior warning about the use of nuclear weapons.
@@user-jd7gh2ef4s Wrong. Just straight up wrong. There was already significant scientific knowledge prior to that, regarding the effects of nuclear weapons and radiation on people and animals.
'there could have been other' FUCKING NAME THEM, by all means. Name a means that would have been less costly in lives. The existence of isolated islands, literal decades after the war, that FOUGHT THEIR OWN PEOPLE, once they were discovered, says that the military fanaticism of Imperial Japan would have fought for every inch. The firebombing of Tokyo WAS about as lethal as the nukes were. It just wasn't as dramatic, and was easier for those in power to supress the severity of. We already know that the government of the time had plans to press women and children into service as 'home-defence fighters', and the cost of taking Okinawa already showed that the costs for traditional invasion would be obscene. The estimates for US casualties alone were frequently above the roughly 200k casualties that the bombs resulted in.
While the flyers did not manage to be dropped beforehand, there WERE flyers drafted warning about it, that due to scheduling issues, were not dropped.
In theory, there were other options. In practice, there is nothing whatsoever to say that the choice made was the 'wrong' one, because none of the other options had any guarantees of working as quickly. There is no way to decisively argue that the use of nuclear weapons was the 'wrong choice', outside of either ignorance, or blind idealism.
@@user-jd7gh2ef4s apart from the pamphlets they dropped a bit before saying yo asses about to get bombed to hell, you civvies should leave
If you are considering the environmental impacts of War while preparing for it, its safe to say you are gonna lose. jmo.
How about this: Consider the impact to the people who have to live there and rebuild when you're done. And that the environment itself is the underlying cause of many wars and political instability. Less arable land and clean water is a big contributor to political unrest. What's the use of winning a war just to leave the place where you won unlivable? If you did it to take it for yourself, now your prize is worthless. If you did it to stop a hostile enemy, you just bandaged the wound and left it to fester. In time whoever you didn't kill is just going to get pissed you ruined their country and left, years down the line, the war will just start over again.
Just look at history of modern conflicts, in the aftermath when the country wasn't put back together, it just leads to another war. After WWI no one really helped to put Germany back together, and instead tried to punish them. The resulting instability lead to an extremist gaining power and another war. After that, Germany was put back together and left stable, no followup war. The US fought a proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviets, and more or less won. Down the line with no rebuilding they got the 9/11 terror attacks and the war that followed.
Again, little consideration to rebuilding on the whole, and it just lead to more instability in the form of ISIS, and continued war. Unless you want to fight _forever,_ it pays to have some consideration about the long-game. And I don't think just killing everyone will help, genocide is a great excuse for someone else to declare war on you.
@@kauske You don’t get to worry about that if you don’t win
Winning comes first, then civilian affairs
@@looinrims Spoken like someone who doesn't understand anything. You can't win anything if you leave the place a devastated ruin. Just look at the middle east, no matter how much money the US pumps into blowing it to bits a new, worse group of extremists just pops up the second the troops are withdrawn.
Raping a country isn't a win, it's an endless cycle of sending young people off to die for nothing, just to make more civilians in that country hate you enough to commit acts of terrorism in retaliation. When is the last time the US has even won a war? You certainly didn't win in Vietnam, Korea is still literally an active war.
The middle east is worse than it ever has been, to the point that things have come full circle to Al Qaeda once more being on the US's side in an infinite war that's been going on since the 70's with no real period of peace. Face the facts, you can't just win a war by brute force and hope to 'clean up later.'
Contrast things with Japan, where some actual care was taken to consider what happens _after_ the war. Instead of flattening the country into nothing to force unconditional surrender, the allies backed off just enough to get a surrender, then were able to put the country back together. Do you think that would have happened if they fire-bombed or nuked them until they surrendered unconditionally?
Look at the difference between East and West germany post WWII, The Soviets literally raped the East in retaliation for the war, even after reunification, the East of Germany is less economically prosperous and less stable after the Soviets looted the place and treat the locals like garbage. And that's without leaving it an irradiated wasteland.
How good do you think a country is going to do if all the arable land and fresh water is contaminated by uranium dust rendering it poisonous? How stable is it going to be without food? People throw a riot because TP runs out, imagine how they'll react if there's not enough food or water.
@@kauske idk man that's there problem
@@dantewiggins5119 yeah, until it becomes our problem, like that one time some people crashed a couple planes into a couple buildings.
Would be really great if you and Chieftain could make a longer Video about it. He mentioned the whole du vs tungsten in the last Q&A and also mentioned that tungsten is used as an alloy in the penetrator and that there is a study that the alloy isn't that great for the environment.
This is also obvious if you have an obsession with radioactive metals
Oh, this video finally told me the truth, I always thought the US was using depleted uranium because it burns through the armor: D
technically, kinetic impact makes things heat up, softening the shell and armor plating, so in a way, its true, which is pretty cool
@@fulccrum2324 :D
@@fulccrum2324 The softening is purely kinetic force any heating / melting the of the armor that happens to occur is simply an aftereffect of this compression.
@@noctisumbra2749 aaaah, I see
sssshhhhh
First time on this channel and I would like to say you chose the right song for the outro. Halo 3:ODST was an amazing game
Depleted uranium tank rounds are really just the most technologically advanced way of throwing a rock at something.
more like throwing radioactive at something
Still a rock
Depleted Uranium gets translated into Impoverished Uranium in some languages.
Remember "Don't inhale Heavy Metals."
My father once told me about a Physical Therapy patient he had a long time ago. Some young man filled with cancer. Told me it was after using DU rounds in an Abrams. Not sure what war over seas, but it was a while back. Damn I wish Vets got more support coming back home...
Agreed I do wish vets had more support coming home. It’s honestly kinda sad.
I already know why but I am just willing to watch your videos because they are great!
Adaptus Mechcanicus: Deploy the Radium Guns!
"DU rounds only spall"
Meanwhile, US troops waterhose human remains out of tanks with the consistency of tomato sauce.
Send a video of that. Sounds like a equally interesting and horrifying thing to watch.
So pretty much like a tungsten APFSDS round
@@andrewmoore7022
No, Tungsten doesn't turn entire crews to liquid.
It's almost like the shell combusts or some shit.
The information regarding the DU Shell is still largely classified as the weapon is still used by US Armed Forces.
We know of the consistency, but apparently it's a two stage round with self sharpening properties.
@@Tienhamir100 No a tungsten penetrator will turn you into mush.
@@andrewmoore7022
Alright, whatever you say, civvie.
Nice infos, thank you for the video :)
“If it gives enhanced performance, the US military will take it”
Well duh, their job is to *Kill* the enemy, not kiss them!
...are we the baddies?
No shit, but it shouldn't be at the cost of civilian lives if they can help it. Otherwise we'd be using nukes and white phosphorus all the time.
@jr41391 I just feel uncomfortable with the notion that because it kills the enemy, it's ok regardless of the effect on the surroundings. It's not coddling the enemy to focus on killing soldiers and not civilians. Thanks for the info though.
@@nedinnis6752 Unfortunately the first job is to win the war, we don’t use nukes because it’ll begin war, and is ineffective in many modern instances
White phosphorus we used a lot against enemy armor in WW2, regardless, again, not as effective for modern problems like insurgencies, not to mention treaties and agreements to abstain from certain weapon systems, notably chemical weapons and other WMDs. Job one is to win the war for our people in and off the battlefield, because if not then the ecological or local effects are gonna be secondary to the bigger problem
Ecological/local effects are to be noted, but are secondary, and most effects don’t annihilate local populations by more professional militaries, the physical damage to a building or land is more problematic than whatever ecological effects happen today in most combat
If the amx 13 was histprically accurate
Histprically
🤷🏾♂
You always bring such fascinating info to the table! Thank you for sharing your knowledge, and I'd love to see you do a collab with the Scottish Koala in the future on strange aircraft designs
I was expecting you to talk about the DU being pyrohpobic, it's less known but i think is something to consider at least. Nice video btw.
After the U235 is removed, depleted Uranium accumulating at the AEC and considered hazardous waste. Turning this from a cost loser to cost positive is a military win. Tungsten would obviously be better but actually needs to be paid for. No US law prevents dumping hazardous wastes in other countries, let alone belligerants. Although softer, Uranium's density is higher and on impact shatters into sharper and sharper tip. Easily burns in air and fumes produced are very toxic
URRRAAAAINUM FEEEVER
I do have a question though, would depleted uranium be the best option for electromagnetic cannons (Railguns, gauss ect) Or would another material be better suited? Also would the round be a shaped charge or regular ball ammunition?
I don't know the science really, but generally when you get as fast as Railguns and gauss get, you probably want to value density over anything else. For Gauss though you could probably look into magnetic meterials for ammo as they would reduce your power needs. Both gauss and Railguns work against shaped charges, you would need way more faster fuses and get little advantage from the extra velocity. Regular ball wouldn't work either since you have no rifling, and Railguns need a sabot. I imagine Railguns atleast would use APFSDS rounds, Gauss probably the same. A long dart is the best way to make use of high velocity ammo.
Methinks when you apply railguns to the equation, you start to design for KK (kinetic kill) method. You *could* slow the railgun down by limiting charge so a chemical warhead would work, but a KK is the simplest use of railguns.
depleted uranium isnt magnetic if not in low temperatures
What do you think about leftover munitions such as tungsten or depleted uranium rounds that poses as an environmental hazard?
Loved the vid also appreciate the Mechanicus music
Every tank comes with a portable nuke. Sounds about right for 'Murica
Actually, its called a McNuke. Get it right bro lol
DU is only toxic if you ingest it.
Army: hold my paint chips!
Quite simply because depleted uranium is cheaper than tungsten.
Properties like adiabatic sheering can be fine-tuned using alloying additives.
Your channel is really underated
3:50 If you're not into heavy metal, what are we even talking about?
The "self sharpinging" bit is fudd lore, it actually erodes before it deforms. Thats due to its orthorombic crystal structure making it strain rate sensitive. DU alone is also not crazy hard, when you alloy with titanium and give it a heat treat, it is posible to make it about as hard as a good knife but with du apfsds thats entirely irrelevant.
it's also radioactive and causes enviromental contaimation.
@@rhetoric5173 wow really do you know a video that has this info?
2:36
ngl that angle made it look like it was floating
Halo ODST theme music outro
You sir just earned a sub!
2:48 Log bias
"Because there isn't .46! Oh, wait, that's an answer to other question..."
How do you know so much!
Love the vids keep up the awesome work
A very well put video.
Now talk about why thorium reactors were never used to a significant capacity despite being vastly superior to uranium in practically every way.
cuz thorium can't be used to make nukes
Historically, uranium reactors have been developed more because
1) they can breed Pu-239 which is useful for bombs and
2) uranium ore can be found in concentrated deposits. Thorium is more common as a fraction of the crusts material but tends to be more evenly spread out, making mining is less economical.
Thorium reactors are also often overhyped. You can reprocess used reactor fuel to reduce highly active, long lasting waste but this is rarely done because the US dislikes it and most countries follow the US's lead. France however manages this fine and sometimes runs some of their reactors on MOX (mixed oxide fuel, regular uranium oxide fuel with plutonium oxide mixed in).
Another often stated advantage of thorium reactors would be their reduced proliferation risk, which is blatantly untrue. If anything, U-233 makes for a better nuclear material as U-235.
So do tell me, in what way would thorium be superior? I personally favor running unenriched uranium with a highly enriched uranium or plutonium 'spark plug' to get going where you breed the U-238 into Pu-239 and burn it in situ. IIRC, molten salt reactors (or any hard spectrum reactor) should be able to manage this fine, but this is admoittedly a more mid-term option. Near-term, regular uranium burning PWRs work fine.
Honestly, pretty much any reactor type that doesn't use graphite as a moderator or boiling water as a coolant is fine IMO. Though sodium-cooled ones definitely are *interesting*.
Because developing thorium reactors is challenging and people keep acting like it's a miracle energy held back by Illuminati. Fack check here (whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html )
@@warbirdgaming8091 That is not true.... (whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html )
Money
The A10C owes the good anti armor performance of its 30mm cannon in part to depleted uranium. Many civilians living in war zones have suffered from birth defects and other harm because of the usage of these weapons. That being said, being a civilian near a war zone is a pretty dangerous affair generally, particularly if one of the combatants is half a world away and thinks you are subhuman.
it's radioacive, dumdum. See "Invisible War - Depleted Uranium and the politics of radiation
"
@@rhetoric5173 you breathe in uranium particulates from soil all the time
@@crusanosicus562 half educated half wit
Incest is more common in Islamic communities.
@@Backonos be quiet.
I know this is old but my dad was over seas. He’s seen what a DU round does. The pyrophoric property does play a big part. It will light the inside of the tank on fire and turn the inside crew into a well cooked mush that you have to use a hose to get out.
now this is good video, very informative.
It’s very easy to complain about how messy war is from the comfort of your living room. Every country wants their troops to have the BEST possible tools to keep them safe.
2:50 Your modern ammunition is no match for the Russian *LOG*
The self sharpening aspect only gives an advantage in long rod penetrators (I.e. APFSDS), so they have moved away from it for aircraft and other short penetrators. The back end cost of the DU such as testing and demilitarization were deemed not worth it for those rounds.
Being self sharpening and pyrophoric go hand in hand, from both of the master gunners I've talked to along with an ammunition/weapons brief they let me sit in on the idea is that in the latter parts of penetration those flakes that break off from the rod catch fire when exposed to the air in the turret. These then go on to cut open and ignite hydraulic lines disabling the tank and forcing the crew to bail.