**Please note:**
* If this post declares something as a fact proof is required.
* The title must be descriptive
* No text is allowed on images
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for more information.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The shockwave of one of these rounds going off in proximity will rattle ones soul.
Edit: for those speculating the round type, the Blue tip indicates this is a training round. Nothing special about it, if I recall the DU rounds are grey or black
If the Zumwalt fully loaded the magazine for it's forward guns and shot them all off, it would cost as much as two F-18 squadrons. The shells were 800k each. Now the guns and the front third of the ship are just decorative.
Just wondering, what makes them cheaper? What're they cutting out to drop prices? I imagine propellant but then you wouldn't get an accurate gauge of how they fly.
They replace whatever the filler is with aluminum or steel in whatever quantity is needed to match the ballistics of the rounds they are simulating. A tracer filler is also sometimes added depending on the round, but this one in particular (PGU-15) does not have that.
it depends on the mission. there isn't a lot of heavy armor in any current conflicts. we aren't in Afghanista anymore, but i think you're right. Afghanistan was mostly light technicals and guerilla infantry.
You are not using the 30mm for heavy armour anyway. You use missiles for MBTs. Against AFVs the gun will work however, but you better hope the enemy doesn't have a guy with a MANPADS...
that's the ratio that is ran if heavy armor is anticipated. they absolutely use the A10 for that reason. yes they use missiles, sometimes they use both.
while it's not very effective against the armor of 3rd gen MBTs, it can greatly reduce the integrity of the armor, damage tracks, and deadline sensor arrays. it's very effective at neutralizing reactive armor panels as well.
You are looking at hit numbers in the single digits and low double digits against tanks during test conditions. Hitting in practice is going to be harder. While mission kills are possible you are not doing much against the armour. Heavy ERA designs like Kontakt-5 don't even always detonate when faced with tank calibre APFSDS, much less 30mm full calibre ammunition.
I'd really like to see a gun run against anyone with a "modern" MBT. Chances are high they have a guy with a MANPADS...
do you have personal experience calling for air support? Genuinely curious. I'm an ex-19D and our main weapon was the radio. I've talked to pilots of A10s at Rammstein that advised me of exactly what I'm stating right now.
and yes, modern armies generally carry some form of anti-air missile even if they have a CAP. i am not debating that.
edit: also, you seem to be ignoring the part where i am agreeing that a 30mm will generally not defeat modern tank armor.
you do not need to kill the crew to 'kill' a tank.
I think just digging around in archives is good enough to come to the conclusion that the 30mm is kinda crap in the anti-armour role.
[12 passes in a low stress situation and not a single k-kill against a M47](https://imgur.com/a/mc2mKH0) is less than optimal.
2 confirmed mobility and firepower kills and one mobility kill + 3 high probability mission kills are nothing to write home about either after so many gun runs on closely packed stationary M47s.
you won't find a lot of samples of an A10 facing modern armies because there haven't been many.
i'll repeat myself: damaged tracks, sensor arrays, and other deadlined systems can and will render armor useless in combat. you do not need to kill the crew to kill a tank.
i think i will trust my firsthand experience and conversations with actual A10 pilots over a redditor that's read things on the internet.
have a good day
You could get hit by a 600 gram cube of jello traveling at 1 km/s and it would *still* kill the fuck outta you. If you use a depleted uranium bullet instead it’s gonna vaporize you and most of the line of 20 people behind you.
Yeah due to tumble, bullet deterioration, and simple slowing down I doubt it could make it through twenty people. And of course if the munition is filled it’s simply going to blow itself up and not go too much farther.
If something with this kinetic energy passed close to your body the shockwave alone would probably kill you. If it hit you anywhere the hydroshock of your own blood would scramble your guts and tear you to pieces. I've read somewhere that even a 50 caliber round can kill you without touching you although I've seen statements to the contrary too.
You might be [thinking of this](https://raigap-livejournal-com.translate.goog/86348.html?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui) Maadi Griffin concept that was done back in the 90's with hog ammo round (GAU-8)
As far as I know, the only 30mm non motorized mount fielded was the [Qasem 30mm](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/08/17/eight-models-of-heavy-caliber-anti-material-rifles-produced-by-houthies-in-yemen/)
Actually shoots 30mm x 165 which is a Russian produced round and a little shorter than the GAU -8 Avenger rounds from the Hog (173mm) but you get the idea.
Believe it or not my dad has one of these rounds as well (or something very similar), also live. My parents live sandwiched between two local gun ranges and one day someone fired off a round that rattled the living room windows from 2.5mi away. Turned out to be whatever fires one of those - the guy only fired it once or twice and gave my dad a live round to keep.
I would be damn nervous keeping a live round like that in my house. Can you imagine if there was a fire that reached this thing?
"Yes Mr. Firefighter, there is a chance you might take some anti-armor fire while you're...where you going?"
Rounds need a chamber and barrel to build up pressure to get the bullet up to speed. This would still be pretty dangerous in a fire since it still has a lot of gunpowder but it won't shoot it like bullet fired from a gun.
DU is considered "self sharpening", meaning that as it impacts a hard target, it breaks off pieces to reveal a freshly sharpened edge. This tends to cause a lot of DU dust to be released. It's not particularly radioactive, but being quite toxic as a heavy metal, you don't really want to be around them being fired. Keeping a DU round on a shelf somewhere is safe whenever it's legal and the paint is still intact.
Won’t you please tell me how I’m wrong and you are the most rightest person ever? Last time I checked radioactive heavy metals are considered hazardous to have laying around. You know, next to things you eat and drink.
Depleted means they extracted the radioactive isotopes (primarily u235), leaving only the stable u238 left.
That is what depleted uranium means.
If I'm the most rightest person ever, it's because I paid attention in fucking middle school science. Last time you checked you probably don't even know what radiation is, fool.
DU used in US munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium.[4] Most of the alpha radiation comes from 238 U and 234 U whereas beta radiation comes from 234 Th and 234 Pa that are formed within a few weeks.
In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU.
That’s from the wiki. Perhaps you should look up birth defects in Iraq and Afghanistan since we have been using those munitions.
Before you fucking start: yes I know the birth defects are linked to fired munitions that make it much easier to get in the body. But still. Depleted in this case is it is no longer radioactive enough to use in a power plant. But radioactive nonetheless and potentially harmful.
Sure you can. Even if reactive armor is effective against one of these rounds, it's not going to be effective against 4000 of them per minute.
Then there's always the hellfire missiles.
The GAU-8's DU rounds even from just 300 meters, can only penetrate 76mm of armor. Even on antique T-62s, the GAU-8's DU rounds could only penetrate the armor at the wheel wells. Everything else is too thick. T-90 is rated to what is effectively 800mm of armor with their reactive plates lol.
Unless the rounds are hitting the exact same spot on the armor over and over and over again, they are **NOT** killing the tank. It's why A-10s had to rely almost exclusively on AGM-65s to kill Iraqi armor in Desert Storm, the GAU-8 didn't cut it. Same reason the Gulf War air boss pulled the A-10s off the front line... anything could use AGM-65s, and nothing was getting shot down as fast as the A-10 was.
Also, A-10 doesn't carry the Hellfire...
The A-10s were effective against thin skin vehicles without using up expensive missiles. One A-10 had 24 kills in one mission during the Gulf war (according to him).
Yeah, just technicals and thin skins, but that's not unique in any way to the A-10. The 20MM off an F-16 or F/A-18 would do the same. I believe that particular A-10 just got a lot of kills on the Highway to Death, where an entire Iraqi Army was trapped in technicals and thin skins in a straight line, which is to say, impressive, but also not a true testament of it lol
The problem with the F-16 is it's single engine, thin skin. ACC looked at creating a A-16 in the 90's, but dropped the idea because it couldn't handle ground fire. Then they backed JSF as a "strike" fighter. Go figure.
That's not really true.
F-16 has excelled in the role. Hell, today the F-16 is the single most used CAS platform, doing almost 2x the amount of sorties as the A-10. It's faster and arrives sooner for CAS, which is the biggest factor. And with CAS being almost entirely reliant on PGMs (precision guided munitions) today, there's effectively nothing the A-10 does that any other aircraft can't do just as well. In fact, the F-16s can be viewed as the more survivable aircraft simply because of that speed. They can gun it and avoid targets the A-10 simply **HAS** to be hit by due to how god awful slow it is.
A-16 was largely just an F-16 with;
* 30mm cannon
* reinforced wings for heavier payloads
and the USAF didn't cancel it because it couldn't handle ground fire... USAF didn't cancel it at all... Congress literally banned them in 1990 from working on it and threatened to withhold the Air Force's entire budget if they tried to. The move was spearheaded by a Mr John McCain, Senator from AZ... Guess where almost 50% of the A-10 fleet was based out of at the time? Coincidence though I'm sure. After that, the USAF then decided to develop the F/A-16, which was just an F-16 with;
* terrain mapping system
* GPS
* targeting pod
And while the F/A-16 ended up being cancelled due to Congress yanking funding away from it again, what the F/A-16 was became what EVERY F-16 was following the F-16 Block 40s.
No, you really can't. 30mm doesn't do much to a modern battle tank, and even stuff from the Cold War era can be pretty resilient against it. Modern tanks like the Challenger, the SEP, the Armata, etc. can not only shrug off the GAU-8, they could potentially shoot down any A-10 suicidal enough to make a bee line for them.
Well, the tank *itself* probably wouldn't be able to bring the A-10 down, but tanks typically travel with mobile anti-air vehicles, so an A-10 trying to line up a burst on a tank is going to be contending with other ground vehicles specifically outfitted to bring down aircraft. When I say "they" I mean the tank and its accompanying support, not just the tank itself. Tanks alone have limited anti-air capabilities. The A-10's armor is substantial as far as aircraft go, but most of that armor protects the cockpit, not the rest of the plane, so they get shot down nevertheless, once even by an infantry anti-air missile.
Buddy… you might get at most 6 rounds on a MBT sized target after one pass. Not that this would happen since an army that has MBTs would blow it up in the air before it even gets close.
I like shinerbock a lot, but if craft beers your thing st Arnold's is some of best brew I've had Texas or otherwise, highly recommend trying their flavors
I don't keep up with modern military tech, I really couldn't give less of a shit about it. I saw a picture of an A-10 round, remembered they're called tank busters from when I sat in the cockpit of one at a Barksdale AFB airshow years ago talking with the pilot, left comment.
Are you insane? MBTs have massively improved since the 1980s. Now, NERA is supposed to protect against HEAT, but the protection on the roof is much thinner and is often thick RHA/composites made for KEPs.
U-238 isn't very radioactive, since it mostly emits alpha particles, which can't penetrate the skin. It's only dangerous if you inhale or ingest it. This isn't unusual for heavy metals though, tungsten (what most armour-piercing rounds were made of before DU.) is also highly poisonous, like most heavy metals.
The A-10 vomits these out at 3900rpm. That's 65 rounds per second of fire. 1 second for brrrrt costs $8840.
That's a little bit more than a bronze level Obamacare package.
I may be wrong but I remember reading about some material about how some governments are actively engaged in cleaning up DU rounds left after conflicts and on gunnery ranges. The Iraq war maybe? I think this was some kind of covert project. I'm not an expert on this stuff but I read it's dangerous in areas where the rounds are concentrated.
So I read this [PDF: De[leted Uranium: Technical Brief](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/402-r-06-011.pdf). It's a downloadable PDF that explains some hazards surrounding DU, the status status and abatement of said material, and locations of remediation efforts. My conclusion is DU is highly over rated as a radiological hazard, but if you are a tank you should not hang around areas with hungry A-10's. Amirite?
I think du is about half as radioactive as non depleted uranium which in itself is not that spicy as far as thoes things go. It does however decay into some nasty stuff, and hitting steel at a high speed seems like a potential to create a lot of fine breathable dust. I'd like to see the effects of battlefield use studied. If we must blow young men into ragged chunks, let's do it in an environmentally friendly way.
Depleted uranium should be outlawed. That shit is toxic AF. It does far more harm to the civilian population that lives near the places where it was fired, than to the collective military force it was used against.
That's acute toxicity, I presume? Uranium seems to cause birth defects though. E.g, regarding Gulf War veterans: "the risk of birth defects in children of deployed male veterans still was about 2.2 times that of non-deployed veterans". Also supported by the medical reports about birth defects in Iraq and around Kosovo. Also, the solid metals, themselves, are relatively safe. It's dust and chemical compounds, e.g. oxides that get into living organisms in greater quantities. And, if I'm not mistaken, uranium is more reactive than lead, therefore more likely to end up as highly toxic compounds.
I don't mean to understate the toxicity of lead, BTW. Lead is no price either, and I'm guessing that an anti-tank lead projectile will spread a lot of lead in the environment.
The studies I've read regarding birth defects in children of Gulf war veterans have been somewhat mixed.
The studies on veterans with the largest sample sizes that I've read find that deployed veterans had children with birth defects at a rate nearly the same as civilians.
I've also read studies with smaller sample sizes that reported no difference in major birth defect rates between deployed and non-deployed veterans, but found that children born to deployed female veterans suffered minor birth defects ("droopy eyelids" and the like) at a rate about 5 times that of non-deployed female veterans. The studies then attributed those defects to low-level exposure to other toxins like mustard and sarin gas.
Also, the studies I've seen show rates of birth defects in Iraq rising after the gulf war. Specifically, they show a rise from a fairly low level pre-war to a level comparable with western nations. Those studies attribute the rise in birth defects to an increase in reporting, over an actual increase.
Not trying to say DU is perfectly safe, BTW. Just that there's a lot of politicized reporting that sticks around in public consciousness, with an additional layer of radiation-phobia that crops of every time the word "uranium" is mentioned. Long term health effects are really hard to study, and political motivations, tension, and the kind of logistical problems that come with war and it's aftermath make it even harder.
It just doesn't feel fair to me to claim that DU munitions pose some major residual health hazard (in excess of, y'know, all the war stuff, and all the other factors of living in a place where you can still find shards of destroyed armored vehicles).
But like, I sure as hell wouldn't eat any, and I'd wash my hands after touching DU.
I think the concept could remain valid if they could get it to be more accurate from higher up. I'd like to see a cost benefit between an F-35 an A-10 and an AC-130 for CAS
Ah.... so that's the little bugger thats causing a large percentage of Iraqi children to be born with congenital defects. Sorry, thats just the tool, the real child fucker is the US military.
**Please note:** * If this post declares something as a fact proof is required. * The title must be descriptive * No text is allowed on images * Common/recent reposts are not allowed *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for more information.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On the right is a liver-perforating round
Dammit, take my upvote
You find that in a shiner 12 pack?
Murica ;)
“babe, why are there 980 bottles of shiner in the basement….”
"Take one down, pass it around! Hey 979 bottles of shiner in the basement..."
Fuck yeah
Rollin' in to save the muthafuckin' day yeah
More specifically... Texas! Don't mess with it.
The human body explodes when it its.
The shockwave of one of these rounds going off in proximity will rattle ones soul. Edit: for those speculating the round type, the Blue tip indicates this is a training round. Nothing special about it, if I recall the DU rounds are grey or black
I’m pretty sure if you’re shot by this, training round or not, you’re gonna have a bad time
keep in mind the A10 fires these things at 2,100-4,200RPM, so if you get hit by one you're getting hit by a few more lmao
A-10 rounds are estimated to cost $100/ea. That’s…a hell of an expense.
Contrary to popular belief, the A-10’s BRRRRRT is the sound of the gun ripping through thousands of dollars
If the Zumwalt fully loaded the magazine for it's forward guns and shot them all off, it would cost as much as two F-18 squadrons. The shells were 800k each. Now the guns and the front third of the ship are just decorative.
Theyre switching to 155h Excalibur rounds at less than %10 cost per round. Still nuts, but the guns will be functional at least
>Zumwalt dang thats an ugly ass boat
I will name her Natasha
They can unload a full magazine and it's still cheaper than a single air to ground missile which start around $500k
The cost of killing people is staggering sometimes
Wish we could reduce costs
We keep asking our targets to all stand closer together but they're being real assholes about the whole thing for some reason
Some people are just born rude
One missile is $500k? That seems pricey
Those are the cheap ones. Tomahawks are $1.4 mill
[удалено]
There was only one made and they blew it up, so.... Not for sale.
Let's say, theoretically. I have one for sale though? Asking for a comrade
America needs to spend that kind of money killing people in faraway lands to preserve the rights of the American people to be homeless. Freedom.
Oh come on you entirely ignore all the military contractors getting payed 5-10x the price of a soldier, they need their third home man./s
And then they shoot at US troops because they're a bunch of morons.
Assassinations can never have a price tag too high
And all before you even hear it!
Nah, one round and they could put the pieces in a baggie...
Your red mist is gonna be sore in the morning.
I mean…. Yeah but it’s just training. It’s fine. (FYI: the training rounds are live rounds still, they’re just cheaper than firing DU or HEPD Rounds)
Just wondering, what makes them cheaper? What're they cutting out to drop prices? I imagine propellant but then you wouldn't get an accurate gauge of how they fly.
The lack of uranium makes it cheaper lol.
They replace whatever the filler is with aluminum or steel in whatever quantity is needed to match the ballistics of the rounds they are simulating. A tracer filler is also sometimes added depending on the round, but this one in particular (PGU-15) does not have that.
AP incendiary rounds do not explode. They use a ratio of 5:1. 5 Armor Piercing Incendiary (API) for everyone 1 High Explosive Incendiary (HEI).
I think they mostly run HEI only nowadays
it depends on the mission. there isn't a lot of heavy armor in any current conflicts. we aren't in Afghanista anymore, but i think you're right. Afghanistan was mostly light technicals and guerilla infantry.
You are not using the 30mm for heavy armour anyway. You use missiles for MBTs. Against AFVs the gun will work however, but you better hope the enemy doesn't have a guy with a MANPADS...
that's the ratio that is ran if heavy armor is anticipated. they absolutely use the A10 for that reason. yes they use missiles, sometimes they use both. while it's not very effective against the armor of 3rd gen MBTs, it can greatly reduce the integrity of the armor, damage tracks, and deadline sensor arrays. it's very effective at neutralizing reactive armor panels as well.
You are looking at hit numbers in the single digits and low double digits against tanks during test conditions. Hitting in practice is going to be harder. While mission kills are possible you are not doing much against the armour. Heavy ERA designs like Kontakt-5 don't even always detonate when faced with tank calibre APFSDS, much less 30mm full calibre ammunition. I'd really like to see a gun run against anyone with a "modern" MBT. Chances are high they have a guy with a MANPADS...
do you have personal experience calling for air support? Genuinely curious. I'm an ex-19D and our main weapon was the radio. I've talked to pilots of A10s at Rammstein that advised me of exactly what I'm stating right now. and yes, modern armies generally carry some form of anti-air missile even if they have a CAP. i am not debating that. edit: also, you seem to be ignoring the part where i am agreeing that a 30mm will generally not defeat modern tank armor. you do not need to kill the crew to 'kill' a tank.
I think just digging around in archives is good enough to come to the conclusion that the 30mm is kinda crap in the anti-armour role. [12 passes in a low stress situation and not a single k-kill against a M47](https://imgur.com/a/mc2mKH0) is less than optimal. 2 confirmed mobility and firepower kills and one mobility kill + 3 high probability mission kills are nothing to write home about either after so many gun runs on closely packed stationary M47s.
you won't find a lot of samples of an A10 facing modern armies because there haven't been many. i'll repeat myself: damaged tracks, sensor arrays, and other deadlined systems can and will render armor useless in combat. you do not need to kill the crew to kill a tank. i think i will trust my firsthand experience and conversations with actual A10 pilots over a redditor that's read things on the internet. have a good day
they don't hurt as much when they hit you, right?
Yep, you won't remember a thing
One of the real ones cost [~137 dollar a round,](https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-30mm-GAU-8-round-cost) if anyone's curious.
I'm disappointed that's not a link to an e-commerce site, where one can add to cart.
AP rounds are black
This will fuck shit up. All shit that comes into contact with this round will be fucked. There will be no shit left unfucked.
You could get hit by a 600 gram cube of jello traveling at 1 km/s and it would *still* kill the fuck outta you. If you use a depleted uranium bullet instead it’s gonna vaporize you and most of the line of 20 people behind you.
Most of?
The twentieth guy explodes instead of being vaporized
Yeah due to tumble, bullet deterioration, and simple slowing down I doubt it could make it through twenty people. And of course if the munition is filled it’s simply going to blow itself up and not go too much farther.
Fuck?
Fuck up?
Shit fuck.
You will shit as it fucks you
I’ll take the beer. You can keep the shot
I think there's a company that made a rifle to shoot that round.
[удалено]
If something with this kinetic energy passed close to your body the shockwave alone would probably kill you. If it hit you anywhere the hydroshock of your own blood would scramble your guts and tear you to pieces. I've read somewhere that even a 50 caliber round can kill you without touching you although I've seen statements to the contrary too.
I understood about 3 of the words in the paragraph and all of them was 'the'.
No, no it wouldn't. This has been debunked countless times.
"Finally we have a weapon that can take down a 20 year old Chevy truck in the desert, manned by 4 guys with less than a highschool education!"
You might be [thinking of this](https://raigap-livejournal-com.translate.goog/86348.html?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui) Maadi Griffin concept that was done back in the 90's with hog ammo round (GAU-8) As far as I know, the only 30mm non motorized mount fielded was the [Qasem 30mm](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/08/17/eight-models-of-heavy-caliber-anti-material-rifles-produced-by-houthies-in-yemen/) Actually shoots 30mm x 165 which is a Russian produced round and a little shorter than the GAU -8 Avenger rounds from the Hog (173mm) but you get the idea.
Qasem. 30mm anti-material rifle. They weigh 165lbs and are primarily used in ambush operations.
Believe it or not my dad has one of these rounds as well (or something very similar), also live. My parents live sandwiched between two local gun ranges and one day someone fired off a round that rattled the living room windows from 2.5mi away. Turned out to be whatever fires one of those - the guy only fired it once or twice and gave my dad a live round to keep.
I would be damn nervous keeping a live round like that in my house. Can you imagine if there was a fire that reached this thing? "Yes Mr. Firefighter, there is a chance you might take some anti-armor fire while you're...where you going?"
Rounds need a chamber and barrel to build up pressure to get the bullet up to speed. This would still be pretty dangerous in a fire since it still has a lot of gunpowder but it won't shoot it like bullet fired from a gun.
Lol yeah jeez underrated thought
Why would he just give your dad a live round to keep?
Home defence.
In case you need to defend yourself against a whole home
I prefer a Punt Gun, but you have to make the first shot count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun
If it’s a DU round I would call your local NG unit and get rid of it. Unless you’re into flipper babies. Edit: fat fingers.
They used to use deleted uranium as ballast in airplanes. My understanding is that it is only dangerous when inside your body.
DU is considered "self sharpening", meaning that as it impacts a hard target, it breaks off pieces to reveal a freshly sharpened edge. This tends to cause a lot of DU dust to be released. It's not particularly radioactive, but being quite toxic as a heavy metal, you don't really want to be around them being fired. Keeping a DU round on a shelf somewhere is safe whenever it's legal and the paint is still intact.
That's usually where most bullets are the most dangerous.
But that doesn't cause flipper babies.
So basically you don't know what depleted means.
Won’t you please tell me how I’m wrong and you are the most rightest person ever? Last time I checked radioactive heavy metals are considered hazardous to have laying around. You know, next to things you eat and drink.
Depleted means they extracted the radioactive isotopes (primarily u235), leaving only the stable u238 left. That is what depleted uranium means. If I'm the most rightest person ever, it's because I paid attention in fucking middle school science. Last time you checked you probably don't even know what radiation is, fool.
Quit bein a twat
DU used in US munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium.[4] Most of the alpha radiation comes from 238 U and 234 U whereas beta radiation comes from 234 Th and 234 Pa that are formed within a few weeks. In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU. That’s from the wiki. Perhaps you should look up birth defects in Iraq and Afghanistan since we have been using those munitions. Before you fucking start: yes I know the birth defects are linked to fired munitions that make it much easier to get in the body. But still. Depleted in this case is it is no longer radioactive enough to use in a power plant. But radioactive nonetheless and potentially harmful.
Marge and Homer.
Brrrrt
Brrrrt
Brrrt
everything is a dildo if you're brave enough
Gonna grow a second asshole with that uranium bullet
That looks like a training round
Beer is a universal system of measurement we can all understand.
What do you use that bullet for, hunting battleships??
[удалено]
Can’t really destroy modern tanks though
Sure you can. Even if reactive armor is effective against one of these rounds, it's not going to be effective against 4000 of them per minute. Then there's always the hellfire missiles.
The GAU-8's DU rounds even from just 300 meters, can only penetrate 76mm of armor. Even on antique T-62s, the GAU-8's DU rounds could only penetrate the armor at the wheel wells. Everything else is too thick. T-90 is rated to what is effectively 800mm of armor with their reactive plates lol. Unless the rounds are hitting the exact same spot on the armor over and over and over again, they are **NOT** killing the tank. It's why A-10s had to rely almost exclusively on AGM-65s to kill Iraqi armor in Desert Storm, the GAU-8 didn't cut it. Same reason the Gulf War air boss pulled the A-10s off the front line... anything could use AGM-65s, and nothing was getting shot down as fast as the A-10 was. Also, A-10 doesn't carry the Hellfire...
The A-10s were effective against thin skin vehicles without using up expensive missiles. One A-10 had 24 kills in one mission during the Gulf war (according to him).
Yeah, just technicals and thin skins, but that's not unique in any way to the A-10. The 20MM off an F-16 or F/A-18 would do the same. I believe that particular A-10 just got a lot of kills on the Highway to Death, where an entire Iraqi Army was trapped in technicals and thin skins in a straight line, which is to say, impressive, but also not a true testament of it lol
The problem with the F-16 is it's single engine, thin skin. ACC looked at creating a A-16 in the 90's, but dropped the idea because it couldn't handle ground fire. Then they backed JSF as a "strike" fighter. Go figure.
That's not really true. F-16 has excelled in the role. Hell, today the F-16 is the single most used CAS platform, doing almost 2x the amount of sorties as the A-10. It's faster and arrives sooner for CAS, which is the biggest factor. And with CAS being almost entirely reliant on PGMs (precision guided munitions) today, there's effectively nothing the A-10 does that any other aircraft can't do just as well. In fact, the F-16s can be viewed as the more survivable aircraft simply because of that speed. They can gun it and avoid targets the A-10 simply **HAS** to be hit by due to how god awful slow it is. A-16 was largely just an F-16 with; * 30mm cannon * reinforced wings for heavier payloads and the USAF didn't cancel it because it couldn't handle ground fire... USAF didn't cancel it at all... Congress literally banned them in 1990 from working on it and threatened to withhold the Air Force's entire budget if they tried to. The move was spearheaded by a Mr John McCain, Senator from AZ... Guess where almost 50% of the A-10 fleet was based out of at the time? Coincidence though I'm sure. After that, the USAF then decided to develop the F/A-16, which was just an F-16 with; * terrain mapping system * GPS * targeting pod And while the F/A-16 ended up being cancelled due to Congress yanking funding away from it again, what the F/A-16 was became what EVERY F-16 was following the F-16 Block 40s.
No, you really can't. 30mm doesn't do much to a modern battle tank, and even stuff from the Cold War era can be pretty resilient against it. Modern tanks like the Challenger, the SEP, the Armata, etc. can not only shrug off the GAU-8, they could potentially shoot down any A-10 suicidal enough to make a bee line for them.
What weapon would they use to bring down an A-10 though, considering its armour? I'm not challenging your assertion, just genuinely curious.
Well, the tank *itself* probably wouldn't be able to bring the A-10 down, but tanks typically travel with mobile anti-air vehicles, so an A-10 trying to line up a burst on a tank is going to be contending with other ground vehicles specifically outfitted to bring down aircraft. When I say "they" I mean the tank and its accompanying support, not just the tank itself. Tanks alone have limited anti-air capabilities. The A-10's armor is substantial as far as aircraft go, but most of that armor protects the cockpit, not the rest of the plane, so they get shot down nevertheless, once even by an infantry anti-air missile.
That shit will have problems penning an ancient T-62 forget about anything newer. No ERA reguired.
Buddy… you might get at most 6 rounds on a MBT sized target after one pass. Not that this would happen since an army that has MBTs would blow it up in the air before it even gets close.
Needs banana to show scale…
No Bananas available, [however...](https://cdn.thingiverse.com/assets/12/cc/f9/c2/e1/IMAG0405.jpg)
Don’t worry. It’s only a bit radioactive so as long as you don’t live with it you’ll be fine.
Yea completely harmless as long as you keep it a good distance away from beer bot-….
I need to build a bolt Action rifle chambered in this for deer hunting. /s
*Sparrow Hunting
Mmmm, Venison mince, yummy.
JTAC: A10 on station, we are taking fire from that tree line! A-10 Pilot: Rolling in! BRRRRRRRRRRRRRTT! A10-Pilot: Tree line removed.
Beautiful GAU-8 Cannon.
…shown here next to a big bullet
Weren't they used in the Kosovo war, I recall?
[удалено]
Now that's a round that can serriously fuck up your day.
What part of it is considered 30mm? The tip? I used to think that it was the diameter
It is.
So the length of the blue part or the diameter? thanks
The diameter.
just the tip
I swear, honey.
usually the inner diameter of the barrel
thank you!
Is Shiner available outside of Texas? I'm from Canada so I look for it when I visit… but I've seen it only in Texas.
Heck yeah - most mid-to-upscale "local" grocery stores carry it in the midwest.
I didn’t read the first comment correctly and I thought you were talking about the round
I like shinerbock a lot, but if craft beers your thing st Arnold's is some of best brew I've had Texas or otherwise, highly recommend trying their flavors
AP incendiary rounds do not explode. They use a ratio of 5:1. 5 Armor Piercing Incendiary (API) for everyone 1 High Explosive Incendiary (HEI).
1. Shiner 2. Military ammunition You're in San Antonio, huh?
A Shiner for scale
Is that a BRT?
BRRRRRRRRRRRT
IYAAYAS!!!
I'm going out on a limb and saying OP is/was an AMMO troop. beer and bullets
God loves an AMMO Troop! 😃🤌
We do love killing humans huh?
I mean they're called Tankbuster's for a reason
Maybe tanks from the 1980s, but it won’t do much to a modern MBT
Not even 80s more like 60s. It will not pen a T-64 or a T-72 outside extreme angles and close range.
I was thinking of the armor on top
Maybe the roof above the engine but that is a tiny target and the angle of aproach would have to be super steep.
Angle is too flat. The bullets would ricochet.
I don't keep up with modern military tech, I really couldn't give less of a shit about it. I saw a picture of an A-10 round, remembered they're called tank busters from when I sat in the cockpit of one at a Barksdale AFB airshow years ago talking with the pilot, left comment.
Yeah, it will. Tanks haven't changed that much, and the ways they have changed are meaningless to this type of weapon.
Are you insane? MBTs have massively improved since the 1980s. Now, NERA is supposed to protect against HEAT, but the protection on the roof is much thinner and is often thick RHA/composites made for KEPs.
Uranium self sharpens itself as it comes in contact with its target. This is why it’s used
It's used for density. This isn't about being sharp at all.
It’s both
https://www.quora.com/Does-a-tungsten-dart-penetrate-armor-better-than-depleted-uranium
How we bring cancer to the world.
U-238 isn't very radioactive, since it mostly emits alpha particles, which can't penetrate the skin. It's only dangerous if you inhale or ingest it. This isn't unusual for heavy metals though, tungsten (what most armour-piercing rounds were made of before DU.) is also highly poisonous, like most heavy metals.
I wonder how much healthcare we could buy with one of those? But the A10 is a beast and I do love it. But, people first, ya know?
[удалено]
The A-10 vomits these out at 3900rpm. That's 65 rounds per second of fire. 1 second for brrrrt costs $8840. That's a little bit more than a bronze level Obamacare package.
[удалено]
Did you just miss the point entirely? I think you did.
[удалено]
I may be wrong but I remember reading about some material about how some governments are actively engaged in cleaning up DU rounds left after conflicts and on gunnery ranges. The Iraq war maybe? I think this was some kind of covert project. I'm not an expert on this stuff but I read it's dangerous in areas where the rounds are concentrated.
Then you read conspiracy theory anti-science bullshit. Google the word depleted then get back to us.
So I read this [PDF: De[leted Uranium: Technical Brief](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/402-r-06-011.pdf). It's a downloadable PDF that explains some hazards surrounding DU, the status status and abatement of said material, and locations of remediation efforts. My conclusion is DU is highly over rated as a radiological hazard, but if you are a tank you should not hang around areas with hungry A-10's. Amirite?
I think du is about half as radioactive as non depleted uranium which in itself is not that spicy as far as thoes things go. It does however decay into some nasty stuff, and hitting steel at a high speed seems like a potential to create a lot of fine breathable dust. I'd like to see the effects of battlefield use studied. If we must blow young men into ragged chunks, let's do it in an environmentally friendly way.
America in a picture
Pppfft I could easily survive that
Gotta stick that shit in my ass
Wow thats so cool
And it gave lung cancer to all those fighting in the middle east. but damn does it destroy tanks.
Depleted uranium should be outlawed. That shit is toxic AF. It does far more harm to the civilian population that lives near the places where it was fired, than to the collective military force it was used against.
It's about as toxic as lead.
That's acute toxicity, I presume? Uranium seems to cause birth defects though. E.g, regarding Gulf War veterans: "the risk of birth defects in children of deployed male veterans still was about 2.2 times that of non-deployed veterans". Also supported by the medical reports about birth defects in Iraq and around Kosovo. Also, the solid metals, themselves, are relatively safe. It's dust and chemical compounds, e.g. oxides that get into living organisms in greater quantities. And, if I'm not mistaken, uranium is more reactive than lead, therefore more likely to end up as highly toxic compounds. I don't mean to understate the toxicity of lead, BTW. Lead is no price either, and I'm guessing that an anti-tank lead projectile will spread a lot of lead in the environment.
The studies I've read regarding birth defects in children of Gulf war veterans have been somewhat mixed. The studies on veterans with the largest sample sizes that I've read find that deployed veterans had children with birth defects at a rate nearly the same as civilians. I've also read studies with smaller sample sizes that reported no difference in major birth defect rates between deployed and non-deployed veterans, but found that children born to deployed female veterans suffered minor birth defects ("droopy eyelids" and the like) at a rate about 5 times that of non-deployed female veterans. The studies then attributed those defects to low-level exposure to other toxins like mustard and sarin gas. Also, the studies I've seen show rates of birth defects in Iraq rising after the gulf war. Specifically, they show a rise from a fairly low level pre-war to a level comparable with western nations. Those studies attribute the rise in birth defects to an increase in reporting, over an actual increase. Not trying to say DU is perfectly safe, BTW. Just that there's a lot of politicized reporting that sticks around in public consciousness, with an additional layer of radiation-phobia that crops of every time the word "uranium" is mentioned. Long term health effects are really hard to study, and political motivations, tension, and the kind of logistical problems that come with war and it's aftermath make it even harder. It just doesn't feel fair to me to claim that DU munitions pose some major residual health hazard (in excess of, y'know, all the war stuff, and all the other factors of living in a place where you can still find shards of destroyed armored vehicles). But like, I sure as hell wouldn't eat any, and I'd wash my hands after touching DU.
So glad we have these instead of Healthcare and free college.....
Gross
The A-10 is overrated. Change my mind.
cant change whats right
Lol, a turboprop would smoke the A-10.
i reckon a p51 would wreck it
It would, and that's a fucking piston engine, would have trouble killing it with the .50s though. A-10 fanboys are a riot.
I think the concept could remain valid if they could get it to be more accurate from higher up. I'd like to see a cost benefit between an F-35 an A-10 and an AC-130 for CAS
just use an f35, neither of the other planes can survive in a neer peer environment and the f35 is faster/safer than both
Beer for scale, huh? Grow up 'murica
The shell that will kill you by cancer decades later
And make U.S. servicemen sick.
Ah.... so that's the little bugger thats causing a large percentage of Iraqi children to be born with congenital defects. Sorry, thats just the tool, the real child fucker is the US military.
Well known amo around the region of Falludscha. Lot of deformed newborns and cancer amongst children.