This New British Weapon Destroyed A Battalion Of Russian Tanks In 30 Seconds
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 окт 2024
- Ukraine Uses British Uranium Tank Shells To Destroy Russian Invaders
On March 20th, the website of the British Parliament published information stating that the UK is prepared to send shells containing depleted uranium to Kyiv for its 28 Challenger 2 tanks, which the UK has decided to supply to Ukraine. Russia's representative at the OSCE Forum in Vienna, Konstantin Gavrilov, stated that Moscow would consider the delivery of depleted uranium core shells to Ukraine as "the use of dirty nuclear bombs." 
Наука
I must have missed the Battalion of tanks being destroyed in 30 seconds
no shite, w tf are the tanks getting destroyed???
Me too ...
So it was a nonsense title ?
Good to know, I can skip the video and block the channel in Blocktube extension.
So how did a new British weapon destroy a battalion of Russian tanks in 30 seconds? Or is that all bull..it as well?
You got it right. It's horseshit
To put it in plain English "it's total bollocks".
" is that all bullshit " you say ??? - That is a rhetorical question if ever I heard one ! The news being reported by the msm and puppet governments worldwide is about as real as Iraqi weapons of mass destruction ! Wait till the truth eventually filters down to the masses ????
Yeah there are only 3 or 4 YT channels worth watching. Not this one.
Utter BS as usual
Why on earth do we keep letting russia know what weapons we are sending to Ukraine
I agree 100%
To scare 'em off...
they would notice such use sooner or later but hide this info from the troops not to scare them. Its better to scare them and its safer to say it publicly then to let russia play some conspiracy theory trolling on our side. Its better to play open cards since we have democracies.
@freebeerfordworkers 😂😂
Because it is politics. If London declares that it is sending armament X, other countries can now send a similar armament without international political repercussions.
Also every announcement like this puts cracks in the idea that Russia can win this war. Russia is a major arms dealer and a power that has credibility due to its military diplomacy. Not winning undermines its aura of supremacy.
RUSSIANS GOING ON ABOUT IT WONT COVER UP CHERNOBAL THATS AN EXPLOSIVE MASS😮.
I think that is why the original assault towards Kiev in March 2022 went via the Chernobyl site.
I think the Russians planned to acquire material for dirty bombs.
Depleted uranium is used where its greater weight provides benefits such as for counterweights in aircraft including early Boing 747s and one estimate indicates about 200 aircraft using this material are still in use in the US. Depleted Uranium weighs 68% more than lead of equivalent size.
Interesting. I want a belt buckle made out of DP and let's see what TSA thinks LOL.
It's density allows it to sustain much higher heat and it penetrates 4 inches of steel in a nanosecond. And it is radioactive. The US tried to bring back every vehicle that was struck by it and burn them.
Depleted uranium is actually just a trade name for nuclear waste turned into a projectile. As the guy in the video said, it's no more toxic than ARSENIC and MERCURY, both of which are extremely toxic. Arsenic has been used for assassination and poisoning rats throughout history, mercury permanently destroys the nervous system, which leads to a slow, but certain death. You really don't want to build your house or even walk a dog in an area containing any of these substances, you don't even want to live 10 miles downwind from any of them.
@@jackwalker9492 The belt buckle would make you infertile and give you prostate cancer, LOL.
@@jannevellamo WHY? Radioactive "marbles" are used as a permanent treatment for prostate cancer!
There is no threat from depleted uranium as it is not radioactive. The purpose of the projectiles is simply greater penetration of opposing armor. There is no explosive pack in the depleted uranium shell. It is simply a rod that enters the opposing tank causing an internal explosive environment and instant death. In 1988, the armor applied to the M1A1, and every iteration since uses depleted uranium. The newest projectiles have additional top-secret additives introducing a blended matrix making up the armor. The first M1s did not have depleted armor, but the biggest improvement came from the Rheinmetall M256 120 mm cannon using depleted uranium rounds. The latest round, the M829E4 can penetrate past the original 13.5 inches of opposing armor, and the extent is classified. However, this round can defeat any active armor protection system. The Russians have burned through much of their "modern" armor and they won't let the Armata ( 14 in service) near the battlefield and have resorted to pulling T-60s and T-55s out of mothballs using virgin crews. We may get to the point of seeing the ancient T-34s. (just kidding)[no he's not!]. Any country within NATO would go through the Russians like vodka through a Bolshevik. NATO practices joint (combined) arms warfare, a doctrine lost on the Russians.
This is lay sure is radioaktiv
Incorrect roguemodel, depleted uranium is indeed radioactive however it is a very weak form of radiation and the partials produced by the DP are weaker than the radiation produced by natural rocks, however if consumed or inhaled it is very toxic to the human body
Falluja disagrees with you. the entire city makes a Geiger meter jump. If DU is not radio active then why is the city glowing?
"It is still radioactive, but at a much lower level than the starting material." quick google search.
Also on impact the DU can turn into dust spewing radioactive dust all over the place.
Also read gusone4527 comment on DU
"I'm a veteran of the 1991 Gulf War. Who took part in the medical research on DU contamination. Many of us are contaminated by that terrible substance, with the measurable genetic damage associated with radiation exposure. The research is peer reviewed and published."
people like you are why the report for misinformation button is there.
There is no threat from asbestos unless it is particulated. Uranium is very radioactive, it isn't fissile, but it will still give you cancer as it is a mutagenic material. @roguemodel you're either a fool or a bot.
Bullshit, people in Serbia & Iraq have very high rates of cancer & birth defects because of the depleted uranium
Lead is toxic too, yet no one complains about that.
extremely toxic when it enters the body at Mach 1
Maybe Great War phosgene gas was worse.
so they say, but what they don't say is that when it rain's all that lead is washes away, it was only 70 odd years ago that 1000's of bombers were flying every night over France on their way to do parcel drops on Germany, each of them 1000+ bomber had four engines burning 400 gallons of petrol for each engine an hour and it was Highley leaded petrol. but you can still live in France, and drink French cow's milk or eat food grown in French soil!,, so your point was?
Not as dangerous as uranium, its depleted but still radioactive as fuck
But it was common to have lead water pipes in houses, as I remember the lead pipes being replaced for non toxic copper pipes back in the early 1950's in our old house, and the insulated plastic covered wiring too....
Well don't bloody well tell them FFS! The turret tossing russian tank never knows what hits it anyway!
Don't ask what Putin think, Ask what Ukraine 🇺🇦 needs.
Very good reply 👍👍👍
Kurd
Exactly!
❤
the US invaded ukraine in 2014 over throwing their president, the war is because the ukraine government is illegitimate
I live in Arizona, one of the states where much of America's Uranium was and is mined, BEFORE any mining there has always been some radioactivity in the area! On Geology field trips over a period of 30 years I have been in many abandoned Uranium mines in the Western USA, at well over 80 years old I have had no visible problems from those experiences! Seems the threat from this ammunition is "much ado about nothing"!
Ignorant statement ,obviously your brain has been affected.
Stand in front of one. Now that is a threat!
Does the term "depleted uranium" give you a clue?
@@kennethhiggs3877 It means its much less radioactive then when mined.
You probably did not breathe in Uranium dust. Just having a block of it around you is not dangerous at all. But dispersed dust to breathe in is dangerous.
I would not go near a tank wreck without a dust mask.
Russia must take action on there own mistakes and run back home
They are dying like flies.
Keep up your hard work Ukrain success is looming
God Bless Ukrain..
Where should they take action on? Where is there?
It is not a nuclear bomb of any sort. Use it. Doesn't the armor of an Abrams tank use it also?
It's part of the Abrams armour matrix for those made for US use, but not exported models.
only because the west cant make Titanium AT rounds like Russia does
pewkin is using it as an excuse to frighten people and give him a chance to use nuclear weapons, the only chance he has got against Ukraine
So would you be happy with the Russians vacuuming up the material after it knocked out tanks and spreading it around you home town?
@@walkerig1The Russians use depleted uranium in some of their shells.
Meanwhile depleted uranium rounds having only 5% better penetration than tungsten ones.
they want to contaminate the area like they did in iraq
Yeah, sure, and now the radioactive dust from these shells destroyed in Khmelnitsky is flying all over western Ukraine and Poland. The Brits helped their friends, well done!
That's what they don't like to hear buddy, the truth scares the shit out of the western sheep.
Our bad, but I was suprised that over 2 million depleted uranium round were used in the Iraq/afghanistan conflict. I didn't know they had that many armoured vehicles
Its going to continue untill russia leavs ukrain and all its teretorries, so yes its going to continue to escelate untill russia have completley withdrawn or bin kicked out.
Bravo man! Let's escalate this thing so all of us die in a nuclear fog for that Neo Nazi zelensky. Great idea!
Are you talking about Russian territories that were taken from Russia in the past? Ukraine gets to keep them as well??
What do you think an A10 uses? For how long?
Depleted uranium tipped tank shells aren't just a British weapon, nearly all competent militaries use them because of its density. There is a health risk associated with the handling of these munitions, but there is absolutely no risk of criticality, no chance of a chain reaction.
So would you be happy with the Russians vacuuming it up and spreading it around you home town?
The uranium rounds disintegrate on impact, producing a lot of highly carcinogenic and mutagenic dust, which of course is extremely toxic to all lifeforms. The uranium is actually not really "depleted", it's just nuclear waste turned into a projectile. Sometimes they even use live uranium, because it's cheap. In an area where uranium rounds have been used, people will be developing cancer and producing mutant children for thousands of years. Yes, thousands. In other words, it's a crime against humanity and the entire ecosystem affecting hundreds or even thousands of future generations. Uranium destroys the future, there is no future for an area where uranium has been used. Oh, and the rounds are not "uranium tipped", the entire projectile is made of uranium. Oh, and the use of uranium is not a sign of competence, but assholery.
@@walkerig1 Probably not, because the hometown would forever be uninhabitable.
But it does contaminate the environment and cause birth defects...........
Tell me, how many of these "competent militaries" have used DU on their own soil?
Yeah, thought so. Going on about criticality is just using the deflection component of gaslighting; the issue is always about nuclear contamination from their use. If you think rationally, then there's no way that comment was formed in your head - it must've been put there and just come out when you felt it might give you a bit of a dompanie hit to repeat in this context. This is how propaganda programming works, you've allowed your mind to be compromised. I suggest a detox.
Боже, благослови Велику Британію та європейців, уніан Славар Україна, армія, удачі НАТО
Putin: "They are nuclear dirty bombs. We have 100's of thousands of them".
Dude, return them and get your money back.
Had Ukraine not surrendered their nuclear weapons this special operation would never have happened
The agreement was that Russia would not attack Ukraine, otherwise they would never have given them away. So much for their word.
@@stevescott2999 Ukrainian nukes??? Are you guys normal?
@@nashbridges-cu6dy Ukraine indeed had nukes, they were soviet nukes that were left on Ukraine territory and passed under Ukraine management
@@nashbridges-cu6dy Yes, Ukraine gave up their nukes. When the soviet union was still a thing, Russia placed Nukes in Ukraine, When the soviet union collapsed and member states then gain control over them selves again. such as Ukraine, they not only became their own country they also inherited all the weapon systems that were left behind after the collapse. The Tanks, Munitions, aircraft. and Yes even the Nukes.
Ukraine and Russia made a deal, that if Ukraine gave up the Nukes then Russia would respect Ukraine as a nation. Russia obviously did not honour that deal.
Had Ukraine not made the deal, and kept the nukes, Russia would never have invaded, as not Nuclear armed country has ever been invaded as the risk of doing to so, is far too great.
@@MinkieWinkle if you resisting to soviets you resisting to their technology too.
I'm a veteran of the 1991 Gulf War. Who took part in the medical research on DU contamination. Many of us are contaminated by that terrible substance, with the measurable genetic damage associated with radiation exposure. The research is peer reviewed and published.
So why does it affect people in some countries, but not others?
Uranium contamination does cause some rather nasty toxic and carcinogenic effects, but this is far more likely to be due to chemical toxicity than from radiation: If natural uranium were used, this would pose a higher risk from radiation due to the U-235 content, but depleted uranium is almost entirely U-238, which has an extremely long half-life and as such generates hardly any radiation.
To put this into some perspective, I used to work in a chemistry lab which handled small quantities (a few grams at a time) of depleted uranium, and of course we had radiation detectors as a safety monitoring requirement. However, these detectors consistently registered higher levels of radiation coming from the walls of the building than from any of the depleted uranium samples we had. This may seem a bit strange but there is actually a straightforward reason for it: The walls were made from breeze blocks (aka cinder blocks), the primary component of which is ash from coal-fired power stations. We got similar readings from most of the concrete and cement-mortar, and for the same reason - coal ash is a common component of those materials too. So in terms of radiation alone, cement or concrete dust is more of a risk than depleted uranium.
Having said that, depleted uranium is still dangerous to handle, just not because of radiation: One of the most disingenuous parts of this video is the suggestion that uranium is no worse than other heavy metals like lead or mercury, as if this somehow makes it OK. But this is not a trivial matter - heavy metal poisoning can be a serious problem, whether from cumulative toxicity as a result of continuous low level exposure, or acute toxicity from short term high level exposure.
Just as with other heavy metals, the compounds of them (oxides and other inorganic salts) are far worse than the metallic elements. If you have absorbed uranium into your body as a result of exposure from depleted uranium used in armour-piercing ammunition, it is far more likely to be from uranium oxides: Uranium metal is pyrophoric, meaning that subjecting the metal to abrasion or friction literally causes it to ignite and burn, producing uranium oxides. This effect is easier to achieve than you might think - just cutting through a chunk of uranium metal with a hacksaw generates enough friction to make the sawdust ignite - the visual effect is similar to the shower of sparks you get when cutting through steel with an angle-grinder.
So the impact forces generated when depleted uranium ammunition is fired at armour plating (of a tank, for example) or any similarly solid material would be more than enough to make a significant amount of the uranium metal ignite and burn, again making uranium oxides. The reason these are more dangerous is because they are more bio-available, meaning they are more easily absorbed by the human body than uranium metal. If the same thing happened to lead whenever lead-based ammunition was fired, then lead poisoning would be an even bigger problem, because lead is far more commonly used in ammunition than uranium. Fortunately, lead is not pyrophoric, so it is not as much of a problem.
"New British weapon wipes tank squad in 39 seconds"
Provides ridiculous claim
Shows no proof
Refuses to elaborate further
They shouldn’t of even told anyone they were sending them to Ukraine. But If Ukraine want to fire a Limited amount at the odd russkie tank, that’s ok 👍. Russia fires band cluster bombs, White phosphorus and thermo baric missiles in civilian areas 🤷🏻 c’mon
So would you be happy with the Russians vacuuming up the material after it knocked out their tanks and spreading it around your home town?
@@walkerig1 I've already read this post elsewhere.
I was going to say the same, yes give Ukraine every little advantage but don't let the Russians know.
Always asked to test mass balance weights on aircraft to see if they were made of depleted uranium
I think they are. We had a plane crash nearby and they said the depleted uranium weights went deep into the ground and so they left them there. 💙💛💙💛🇬🇧
Glory to Ukraine. ❤
ukraine will dissappear soon and will be russia soon
In the M60A1 one of the supplied rounds was the Sabot, shown here as the slim needle like projectile .
It had a velocity of around 4,000 ft/sec, that combined with the density of depleted Uranium would punch a hole in anything and send shards flying around the inside of the tank producing a non survivable mess
I may be wrong, but I always thought that a 'sabot' is the shroud surrounding the projectile, which is normally discarded, after firing to allow the projectile to go on and do what was intended. These tank rounds were designated in 2 ways, APDS and HE. The APDS(armour piercing discarded sabot) round punches a hole in tjhe armour and then the HE (High Explosive) round follows and blows the target to smithereens!
@@RichardASK the projectile doesn't have a HE, it relies on velocity and mass to produce the energy. HESH rounds use HE squash heads that have shaped charges. HESH rounds will be used just about all the time, unless a T90 or Armata appear.
I heard that the sabot dart would enter and exit the tank so fast that the crew would be sucked out the exit hole...A D.A.T ( 19K ) told me that they tested this effect with pigs inside a test vehicle...a pile of flesh was sitting outside the tank below the exit hole, gross.
They can be washed out with a hose. Absolutely Nothing left of da bastards!
@@stevescott2999 In reality the Ukrainians will USE what they have on hand at the moment!
“ No more dangerous than arsenic or mercury” both of which lethal, the lethal dose of arsenic is 100 to 300mg. I am sure that making a weapon from either of these substances would be illegal.
easy to take the moral high ground when you are not the one being invaded by Russia.
Oh yeah 😎. Thought I read/heard somewhere that depleted uranium was used in Gatling Guns aboard ships to knock down missiles and drones?
Missiles and drones tend to be unarmoured and full of sensitive electronic avionics systems. DP ammunition would be ioverkill. Standard rifle ammunition would do the job and stop the offending device doing what ever it was you didn't like.
The trick is to get as many projectiles into the air in as short a time as possible to increase the chance of making a hit.
"This New British Weapon Destroyed A Battalion Of Russian Tanks In 30 Seconds"
So having watched this, I am still waiting to see this happen??
So quick we missed it
@@nickcoppard5335
Possibly, but not going to watch all over again. as it was not that interesting......😀
Russia was responsible for the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 which spread radiation all over Europe. Also the Kyshtym disaster in 1957 and it has polluted the oceans with the loss of seven nuclear submarines, either by accident or scuttling. The Soviet Navy lost five the Russian Navy two, (and the United States Navy two, by comparison). It's a bit rich for Russia to complain about possible (and miniscule) radiological effects from Ukrainians using depleted Uranium shells to destroy the equipment of the invading Russians. If the Russians see this as an excuse for the use of nuclear weapons then they must accept that they are going be a lifetime pariah state and that they are going to lose about 70 million of their population in the response.
It was a mini CIA nuke what destroyed Chernobyl
@@moderntimes123 I don't know what drugs you are on or where you get your propaganda but there have been numerous detailed exposes about Chernobyl - including from the Russian authorities. It was the incompetence of the (then) Russian operators which caused the Chernobyl meltdown. Please ask your doctor to change your meds.
What Francis said, except Russia is already a Pariah state whilst their organised crime government, aka, the Kremlin, is still in office. They are a real world problem.
FYI Chernobyl is in the Ukraine,
@@WarpedSpeed And was Ukraine part of Russia, governed from Moscow in 1986? Yes. So Russia was responsible. Everyone knows that Ukraine is saddled with the consequences of Russia's reckless "test" at Chernobyl.
The Russians have already been using depleted uranium shells in the Ukraine. The Russian 1st Guard tank army uses these shell as standard. .
Your source?
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
@@mrmikemrmike western media or drugs. Because Russia didn't use them.
Surely it’s got nothing to do with Putin or Russia, it’s not their land. It’s up to the Ukrainian people if they want these weapons used on their land or not.
Time to invade Russia put them on the defensive.
True, but Russia thinks it's their land and any kind of nuke use will give them the excuse to use their own, then say you started it...
Depleted Uranium was used in Iraq . It's not new but does mean that in a tank on tank encounter , the Russians will come second .
People forget Russia also have depleted uranium shells for their own tanks as well and they have been using them in the early part of the invasion. These are usually used by their elite guard tank army. The Russian are only screaming foul play because most of their stocks of depleted uranium shells have either been destroyed in the turret poppers or in their ammo dumps which the Ukrainians seen to have a knack of finding and destroying them with arty.
@@jonathanpatrick8506 Exactly
Errr Russia has depleted uranium rounds too dummy
What kind of ammo does the A-10 use? As I recall the same stuff? I was informed that the US was donating A-10s to Ukraine, I would assume they will supply the ammo too?
It uses DU rounds.. Nasty stuff.. As well as the "Striker" it shoots 30mm DU rounds.
Too vulnerable and slow. Ukraine can't afford to sacrifice their pilots. Besides, you don't need A-10s to defeat Russian armor; the Ukrainians have destroyed more than half of Russia's operational tank fleet in a year without much air power.
Firing that type of weapon, would it not cause cancer to the crew of the tank using it form the blowback of the round being used in the confined area of the tank turret.
The depleted uranium is a dense metal tip on the dart that is fired at the enemy tank. Basically like the nail you hammer into brickwork it’s hard metal. The shell contains standard propellant. We are talking about a fin stabilise discarding sabot round. Standard propellant pushes a 125 mm casing down the barrel as it leaves the barrel it discards the casing and leaves a dart flying straight and true at any enemy tank, it is an inert dart it is solid, to maintain the point the end has the depleted uranium tip, it is harder than armour and will punch a hole through armour. So no it will not affect the crew that fired the shell. If you go up to destroyed tank and take some of the dust from inside the tank and breathe it into your lungs then it could possibly pose a threat to you. So it is not a dirty bomb at all nowhere even near one. If you wore a standard dust mask and swept the waste away your good. The same recommendation when dealing with a particulate filter in a car or truck applies. So as usual the Russians are lying to their population yet again to try and justify to their population why the thugs in command have killed 170,000 of their population on a useless war which was to try and re-establish the old Soviet Union for some old farts and some radicals. Russia will go broke over this, I hope the Russian people wake up and change their government.
No. Most of the radioactivity in uranium comes from uranium 235 (normally 0.7%), and this has been removed (for use in reactors or nuclear bombs) leaving behind the much less radioactive uranium 238. The main problem happens after the shell has been used - when it hits enemy armor it leaves behind a lot of tiny fragments, and while not very radioactive, uranium is a toxic heavy metal.
Any firing gases are ejected through the venting muzzle on the end of the barrel, they do not enter the turret. British tank guns have been like this for quite a while now. Watch the end of the barrel after the round has been fired, very clever system
Now you know the real reason the Alfred P Murray building was blown up by the Clinton admin
Poppy Bush used these in desert storm and all the records were housed in Little Rock
Clinton enters office and had them moved to OKC and 3 months later all that info of our soldiers being exposed quietly got destroyed in Alferd P
@@HighFell the "venting" at the end of the barrel is not for that reason, you are talking about the muzzle brake, the reason for that muzzle brake is to keep the barrel from whipping upwards after the shot was fired helping to get the next shot off faster! it also helps to pull's cold air into the barrel from the breach end to keep the firing fumes down inside the tank,
A Prison in the UK , is positioned next to depleted Uranium shell storage. The number of Staff Cancer diagnosis, is far greater than normal averages. I am not counting issues with Inmates . What does this say regarding this type of Ordinance .
There's no need for depleted uranium. As we can see to this war. Tanks are destroyed by anti tanks and artillery.
It's done to contaminate the landscape of the "enemy". Absolutely, not needed, or warranted.
238U is generally used in staged weapons as part of the tamper. Essentially a small primary (fission) explosion creates the conditions to trigger the secondary (fusion). But then the high-energy neutrons ARE able to make the 238U undergo fission producing a third stage. About half the energy generated by a hydrogen bomb is actually from the 238U tamper.
So under certain circumstances, 238U very much can produce a large nuclear yield.
I do appreciate that in no way could such conditions be generated in an APDS round but that sort of detail is the sort of thing certain media outlets will spin.
And yes, it is very toxic and forms a fine dust.
Doesn’t the A-10 Warthog se depleted uranium in it’s nose cannon ? War is a dirty game to play! As long as the health risks of depleted U238 are minimal the benefit sounds like it outweighs the risk. If using it leads to a nuclear war that is an obvious problem and deserves close scrutiny.
We can play global thermonuclear war far better than Vlad.
Depleted uranium is stronger and heavy as lead. It’s not radioactive and makes good bullets.
Meant to say not as radioactive.
If the smallest amounts of depleted uranium 238 are inhaled as dust or if you come into contact with this radioactive material in any other way and the exposure takes place over a longer period of time, this will sooner or later be fatal. Long-wave alpha and beta radiation damages cells and destroys parts of the DNA. If exposure is less than 4 or 5 minutes, lifelong damage can occur.
@@paulbedichek5177 Until Putin drops a bomb on you or me. That is the problem. Ok if he drops it a zillion miles from here but war does not always work like that
I recall a story going around in the 70s that DU rds generated a 'burst' of radiation on impact with armor. Then, the story was DU released toxic material when impacting armor.
Meh.
Ru nukes uk...
Our subs turn Ru to glass 15 minutes later.
putin would never order the use of tactical nukes in Ukraine,let alone another country. The West would not respond to a tactical nuke in kind, the US AirForce would destroy the Kersch Bridge and take out Russian assets that were foolish enough to be airborne, sink just the Russian vessels in the Black Sea, then stop.
Not sure Russians would follow orders to deploy nukes.without Russia being in danger.
This 'new' British weapon? The one that's been used for over thirty years?
It will completly destroy the Ukranian crops for generations. You dont have to be an expert to understand depleted or not, it is Uranium.
"Nuke them till they glow, then shoot them in the dark." was our special weapons motto in my artillery battalion in W. Germany.
glad were on the same side now.
Around 1967 I had lunch with an Associate. One of her projects was also one of my products. But she had other products too. At lunch she said that did I know tanks were just made obsolete? She was talking about spent uranium. That was again back in 967.
I say that Ukraine should be able to use them bc if Russia can use cluster bombs then Ukraine should use this
Wasn't 28 Challengers. Was 14 only. Possibly some other recovery vehicles based on older challenger 1 hulls
It's illegal to fire a depleted uranium shell in the USA on say a tank firing range but it's perfectly safe of course.
238 is not the fissionable isotope. It is not remarkably hot, either: it's got a half life that is about the age of the Earth.
@freebeerfordworkers Yes. And it isn't a rumor that breathing the dust inside and around a vehicle that had been hit with DU is very bad for you. Every particle of DU that you inhale goes into the lung and stays forever and while the amount of radiation emitted per particle is very low.....enough of them over time will cause health problems.
The DU tank rounds used in the Desert Storm campaign were WAY overkill for the Soviet tanks they encountered. One Allied tank fired at a T-72 that was hull down behind berms over 20ft thick. The round hit the berm, went through it and hit the tank, went through the tank...then through the berm on the other side, then hit another berm, went through it and killed the tank that was hiding behind it. One shell, about 60ft of berm penetration as well as two tanks. Is that enough overkill?
@@recoilrob324 So don't be on the receiving end. War is about killing people tough guy.
@@jackwalker9492 Oh yea...I'm aware of that but wars aren't won just by killing people....it's a game of who can out produce whom. Run out of airplanes, tanks and missiles and you lose. We made DU ammo because it works the best and we had a LOT of it laying around and nothing to do with it. But the long term problems with it now don't seem worth the effort especially since we have many effective anti-tank missiles. Didn't they just adopt a 4-1 round for the tanks that would be used instead of the Silver Bullets? I mean...war is ugly and horrible...but it's even worse if we pollute the area for centuries.
@@recoilrob324 Agree and disagree and am retired US Army Infantry. Its a contest of wills far more than anything else, but your point about logistics is valid. For example, our Shermans in WWII were inferior to German tanks. But, when we are throwing out 10-1, do the math. Speed of production is crucial too and I worry that we are getting too high tech for our own good. BUT! I retired in 2008 and realize I am a dinosaur with a brain to match. Its just my charm and natural good looks that see's me through LOL. Trying to worry about the environment while fighting for your life is a ridiculous concept.
Is it necessary to send Ukraine depleted uranium? Won’t conventional founds do the trick?
They need somewhere cheap to dispose of their nuclear waste and are happy to use other people's countries.
I'm a big supporter of Ukraine BTW.
Let’s see if Putin likes his tea with Polonium - 210?
FO American warmonger, lets see some missiles attack America and see how it likes its cities destroyed instead of destroying other countries cities.
Depleted uranium, it's radioactivity half life has been passed and it is no longer a hazard beyond standard background radiation that we receive daily from the environment. The dust hazard would require you live on the range next to the targets being hit to amount to enough to cause any issues. I spent 7 years with the BFV and had ap around and am cancer free... because it's depleted. Time has effectively neutralized the radioactivity. The actual DU penetratator is also quite a bit smaller than you would think. For the BFV it's about 2.5 inches long and pencil sized. DU has been around a long time so this is just to stir people up
The DU Shells are not a 'new weapon' as they have been around since the 1970's and since then there has been various projects looking at their replacement, one such was the 'Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project', I doubt that any DU Shells will be allowed out of the UK, and will only be supplied and rearmed with armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS), high-explosive squash head (HESH) or smoke rounds.
Depleted Uranium shells are Harder than Titanium or Tungsten Shells No Actual Radiation is involved
Depleated uranium projectiles have been around for years. It’s not radio active, just very dense.
Depleted uranium is radioactive. Its radiation will not go through the external skin, but if breathed in it can cause cancer.
So would you be happy with the Russians vacuuming up the material after it knocked out their tanks and spreading it around you home town?
@@walkerig1 , We are not talking about the Russian's hometown. We are talking about Ukrainians using it in their own country, almost entirely in open land. That makes all the difference.
@@factChecker01 Yes but we are not talking about it being left on the battle field. We are talking about providing the Russians with the radioactive material, their vacuuming it up with the perfect excuse to return it to sender...
@@No1sonuk Returning pollution to the sender is acceptable. Creating pollution is not.
Rule Britannia as it also has adverse long-term side-effects:~ The two primary health concerns related to DU exposure are radiation and heavy metal toxicity. Radiation - since DU is less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium, this should not be a significant source of concern. Heavy metal toxicity - The first organs of concern are the kidneys.
It is not a nuclear bomb in any sense. It is also not a "dirty nuclear weapon" either (as Putin says). It does not contaminate the environment in any measurable way. Nobody is hurt or repelled in that sense. The armor of an Abrams tank uses it also. It also does not impede enemy soldiers by its 'radioactivity.' It is simply VERY VERY HEAVY and makes an excellent armor or attack shell. It can penetrate almost anything.
Someone was loading and firing pretty smartly too. A whole battalion in half a minute?
I think the whole thing is ludicrous. The 30 mm gun on the A-10 has been using depleted uranium shells (in both practice and in combat in several conflicts) almost since it's inception. Those shells are what make A-10's "tank killers." Without depleted uranium shells, the 30 mm gun would NOT be able to penetrate a tank's armor.
this vid was actually quite accurate, i like this more than well your other channels...
The dude failed to mention that all those UK shells were recently blown sky high down in Ukraine causing something of a mushroom cloud and high radiation levels in the explosion area. But, you know, conveniently that part was left out of the video.
England shouldn't say anything about sending depleted uranium rounds against the Russian armor vehicles. Just ask what the Ukrainians want and give them what they are asking them.
Why in the 🔥👹🔥do we even tell what we use , ?? Would the Russians tell us or even admit it ?🧐✅
Neither of the main uranium isotopes is terribly radioactive - U235 has a half-life of 700 million years, U238 (which constitutes over 99% of natural uranium) of 4.4 billion years. Still, it is radioactive, and it emits alpha particles when it decays. Alpha particles are easily stopped, so there is very little danger as long as the uranium is outside your body. But if such a decay event happens inside your body, it does a lot of cell damage in a small volume, for the very same reason: the alpha particle gets shot out of the uranium atom, immediately crashes into a cell, destroys part of it, and creates a whole avalanche of secondary and tertiary particle shrapnel that each go on to wreak their own havoc. If you want to start a cancer, this is one of the best ways to do it. Suffice it to say, you want to keep uranium dust out of your lungs at all costs. Which is why the sample of uranium ore in my mineral collection (80,000 Geiger counter clicks per minute) is in its own sealed plastic container to keep any dust contained, and I do not spend much time right next to it.
And then there is uranium's chemical toxicity - you would not want to breathe in or eat any mercury, lead, cadmium or arsenic, and uranium is on the same level - with the radioactivity lottery added. Depleted or not, it won't kill you quickly, and it may not kill you at all. Maybe it will just screw with your nervous system or something. But it's not great to have around. You don't want to win the uranium lottery.
Depleted uranium projectiles should have never been allowed. There are so many ways to defeat armor in modern times.
By the way, Russians also have anti-tank rounds made from depleted uranium, and are using them in Ukraine since the start of the war. Depleted uranium is a material that Russia has plenty of. So it is a hypocritical outcry from them to be concerned with "dirty weapons".
They really aren't using them though. What's your source? Trust me bro??
@@darrenasquith1170 Don't trust anybody, especially me. Seek the sources yourself. Start with googling the phrase "depleted uranium projectiles from Russia".
You commenters seem very well informed. Did any of you notice his take on whether or not to use them. It's not wrong to defend your own sovereign territory in my opinion. If Ukraine is not firing across the border in retaliation, then let them pollute their own lands as they may.
I wonder if the measurements in Ukraine took into account the additional level of contamination from the Chernobyl disaster
Didn't we heard this in the past......"Smoking doesn't kill or causes cancer".......WHO wants to investigate???
The big question is not if the shell can start nuclear fission; it cannot. The question is does it release harmful radioactivity?
Yes. Ask serbians about cancer level after nato aggression.
it's not creating an a-bomb effect... yet depleted doesn't mean inactive... so parts of that will still radiate the area and when picked up by people even worse...
The US. used all kinds of DU. in all conflicts in the past 2 decades.. The training ground here on Hawaii stopped using it back in the 80's because of radiation contaminated areas ( A-10 target zones).. They still have warning signs posted around that part of Pohakaloa..
Are you sure it is radiation and not chemical pollution
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 I've been hunting up around these areas they are target zones that were used by A-10, helicopters, artillery.. You name it they dropped it or fired it.. DU was banned up there in the 80's, but up until that time DU was used there.. When I say there I mean a hours long walk because you can't drive out it's gated..
@@parttime9070 Yes, i am not saying there is no DU.
I am asking: Is the issue radiological pollution or chemical pollution due to heavy metals.
From what i know about depleted uranium, it should be chemical pollution and not radiological pollution.
Now if you hunt there, (and i assume you eat what you hunt) then your prey will have elevated levels of heavy metals in their body. If you eat them, then so will you. That is again poisoning (i.e. chemical pollution)
And the human body is bad about getting rid of heavy metals.
Now there could be a second possibility, and that is if the DU was not sufficiently depleted, and particles (atoms) can be absorbed by the body (or that of your prey animal). I that is a radioactive atom, then you have ingested a radioactive source.
And the human body is bad about getting rid of heavy metals.
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 The metal is radioactive making it radio-logical pollution..
Poisonous is not the same as radioactive. The same amount of Arsenic that is lethal of U238 would be harmless. Poison works as a chemical process....radiation damage (too many X rays or too much sun) breaks down individual cells.
Uranium oxide dust is the poison.
This video contained a lot of good information for me to think about. Thanks.
Yes that's right, with such a wonderful tank, no wonder Ukraine lost Bakhmut 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Using depleted uranium is illegal in the USA even on firing ranges due to the radioactive contamination
I wonder if it's for the dust! Breathable
...no, it is because of the danger the long rod penetrator affects due to the possibility the round ricochets or is fired over its target and removes itself from the range and into a house beyond the range...it still has the capacity to penetrate and cause damage outside the boundaries of the range...it goes a long, long, long way if uninhibited...the muzzle velocity is over 6000 feet per second...and it loses little velocity until it hits something...during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, we hit and destroyed moving combat vehicles (targets) 3 miles away in about 4 seconds of flight time...
This neatly avoids mentioning why the Uk is giving away its stockpile of depleted uranium rounds is very simple to understand. They don't need them anymore in such large numbers, The reason for that is they are currently engaged in upgrading the Challenger tank to a type 3 variant which includes a change in the type of main gun used. The original Challenger 2 gun is a rifled barreled device and the shells therefore reflect that type of gun, as the Challenger 3 comes online it has a smoothbore gun fitted similar to that used by the US and Germany. The shell inventory for Challenger 2 will not be of any use to Challenger 3 and will probably use the four-in-one shell currently under final development in the US reducing the total types of shell required to just two variants. Ukraine now had Challenger 2 in its inventory so it was a no-brainer for the Uk to send out what shells they had for that type.
When was the Battalion Of Russian Tanks destroyed.
so where is the information about the battalion of 20000 tanks destroyed by a single tank?
Hundreds of tons of DU were used in the first 1991 Iraq war and even more during the second 2003 war. There are areas of high radioactivity in certain of the battle zones, with associated cancers and birth defects to go with it. All nations, especially the superpowers, should ban depleted uranium for military use, but that's unlikely to happen anytime soon.,
Nathan,you know you are lying,DU has less radioactivity as it has its useful U235 removed, how could it be radioactive? Now U can cause problems as a chemical, but if you are infested with Russians raping women and children,U is the least of your worries.
Russia has no options but to watch as its army navy and airforces are destroyed.
Urban Legend. You have failed to understand the basic metallergy of DU. The radioactivity is lower than the background. Uranium is a poison which causes the problem NOT radioactivity ( or rather a lack of)
what proof have you got and no depleted uranium does not give off massive radiation and also there are no confirmed reports of what you have said.
Sometimes DU rounds become aerosolized when they impact a target, resulting in radiological dispersement.
Depleted uranium is pyrophoric, meaning that they ignite in the presence of oxygen.
It's probably better and safer to just use a tungsten core for fin-stabilized rounds.
Having listened to your account and not having read the comments below, my first reaction was that the Russians might answer by using those shells themselves. As you say, they have loads of them while the ammount to be sent by the UK is minimal. This is the escalation which may be much more probable than any nuclear threat, and this is why the US may have declned to send those shells. Depleted uranium shells on the Russian side, together with the new drones that attack tanks from above, would severely lessen the impact of Western modern tanks on the battlefield. It would be wiser to deploy the tanks and armoured vehecles and wait for Ukranian advances that might create a new situation *before* Russia escalates.
Putin has already been convicted of war crimes. If he has not used DU ammunition yet, I doubt it is due to humanitarian issues.
As others have pointed out the Russians have already been using those depleted uranium shells in certain battalions. Never forget the Russians propensity to lies and misinformation.
This stupid over-use of the word 'escalate' is a desperate Russian propaganda tool -- they try to scare supporters off Ukraine (to not much avail). Escalate TO WHAT? About 100,000+ people died already by conventional weapons. What is the difference between flattening a Ukrainian town by conventional sheels or by a nuclear bomb? Are those people who died from conventional weapons happier that they did not die by a nuke? And their families, friends? Escalate to a nuclear conflict in which Russia would probably become an uninhabitable glass desert for centuries? For what? 2 Ukrainian counties? C'mon ...
It seems clear that a decisive victory over Russia will be the objective of Ukraine. That is why they are seeking the appropriate weapons and training (we cannot give them manpower) ready to mount the all important counter offensive. We know that the Western tanks (Challenger, Leopard and Abrahams) are far superior to anything the Russians have including the T-14. Then we have what I call the APCs (Armored Personnel Carriers) with American Bradley superior to Russian equivalents. That leaves the situation in the air where Ukraine has settled on requesting F-16 aircraft from the West. Britain and The Netherlands support this initiative and will start to attempt to bring on board our coalition partners. As the F-16 is manufactured by General Dynamics we need the US to authorise the supply from coalition partners. The danger we face is that with a successful counter offensive a heavily defeated Russia may look to mobilise its battlefield Nuclear weapons. The West has made every effort to deter use of the weapons but there is always a possibility, however remote, that this could happen. I think what we have to recognise is that our quarrel is not with the Russian people per se but with the Russian President. I believe if we remain resolute but flexible in our approach then victory is possible in the short to medium term.
The Russians are reported to be using DU anyway. It's easily checked: just get an alpha detector and wave it around where the tank rounds have landed.
Then tell me Putin, did you not use nuclear materials in your poisonings in England?
wow! i don't believe that there actually some people exist that think that this isn't Britain who killed russian people in London.
What is the effect of natural Uranium which has the 238 isotope in it?
By doing this, the British have basically invited the Russians to use their depleted uranium shells too. Which Russia had so far chosen not to use, due to the toxic & flammable dust/smoke it causes.
Bull shit - since when has the lying toad orcs ever chosen to do something, anything even on humanitarian grounds? Short answer - never!
If the Russians had any they'd be using them already.
They don't use depleted uranium. Me thinks you mean their radioactive shells are nukes.
2:35 Sorry but your only 1/2 right. Tall Boy, dropped on Hiroshima, used Uranium.
Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki, used a sub-critical sphere of plutonium. Fat Man was
somewhere between 70 to 80 times more powerful. Though it did far less damage
due to the mountains around the city deflected much of the blast.
Hottest News! Listen Carefully NATO!
Ukraine enveils plan for recaptured Crimea - but Ally reluctant to help providing long range weapons! Hahaha afraid of invader's bluffing!
So true.
If you want a little fun, compare the amount of radiation from depleted uranium munitions to what's received on a sunny afternoon. You might be surprised.
Awesome can't wait for Nukes to come back, get your marshmallows ready x
The first casualty of war is truth.
😬🙏
The Russians can consider them Ice cream if they want to. It doesn't change the facts. Depeleted Uranium shells are just very dense procjetiles. They have more penetrative power than steel jacketed lead or any other kind of slugs simply because of their density and mass. Whilst they may have some minor inherent "dirtiness" to them, most heavy metals do as well. If Russia starts using using tru "dirty weapons" weapons that kill more people with their toxicity effects than their effects as explosives, the USA has stated that they will consider it the severest of provocations.
The word "depleted" is used, with regard to these projectiles, for a reason.
They are not "dirty bombs", but they are effective. That is the reason russia is objecting.
Russia uses the exact same technology in their ordinance.
They'd be lying to suggest otherwise.
Thank you, trumph , this was informative ,
The only advantage of DU is the higher densitiy and that it is practically free. It is essentially a waste product.
"Self sharpening" does not exist. It's one of the many urban legends about weapon technology.
Your maths is out. If 2 million shells left 400 tons that is 200 grams per shell. Unlikely.
It is still radioactive and there is no need to create trouble for civilians post war.
@Military News
Why do you say that "in our opinion" the use of depleted uranium anti-tank shells increases the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons? Such an assertion is nonsensical to say the least.
Suuurrre you have "hundreds of thousands " of these. If the Russians told me it was sunny and warm, I’d be sure to carry an umbrella.
The A10 uses depleted Uranium rounds in it's cannon. It's not just tanks.
Uranium 238 is found naturally in and on the ground. It's had some radioactivity removed so there is NO argument 5hat it's a dirty bomb. Even the dispersant of it offers very little radiation than background found in nature. It's also EXTREMELY hard.
But the uranium oxide dust produced when it burns after penetrating armour is both toxic and radioactive: worse than cigarette smoke.
SLAVA UKRAINE 🇺🇦🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇦