Does Chobham armour resist multiple hits?

That's why i put true between quote marks: if they aren't true, you don't have to take them seriously.

It's not that bad to fall a little off-topic. But we can make a new thread out of this if you want me to.

No indeed, me neither. That's why I am so interested! I'd like to sort out if it's true or not. A lot of things seem to cause cancer these days. It's very hard to distinguish between things that really cause something and the ones who don't...

 

If it did cause cancer, you might be surprised to know that many modern airliners use DU as counterweights for control surfaces due to it's high density. A 747 uses about 1500 kg's!

DU's radioactivity is lower than what has been accepted as standards for acceptable levels. It is estimated that if you held a DU penetrator in your bare hand for 250 hours continuous you might exceed the maximum acceptable standard ( a minimal level of threat to long term health)
Heavy metal toxicity is a more likely hazard than radioactivity and that hazard is shared by all heavt metals, including tungsten, lead etc.

 

one block of DPU is effectivly harmless as far as I know. However the problems occur when the block is hit by high velocity items or burnt. Apparently splinters and dust from the block are produced which can be breathed into the lungs and throat. I suppose it's a bit like asbestos. Harmless to handle all day but one strand in your lung could kill you.

However I have seen news stories where people go at tanks, mainly in Iraq, with gieger counters and they light up. That I don't understand as the rounds are not supposed to be radioactive in that way.

However the US military is famed for looking after it's troops so you never know, just look at agent orange.

FNG

 

No data to support this "theory".

They aren't, which should make one question the motivation and agenda of the people doing these tests. Who runs around Iraq with a geiger counter?

They are, and they do, despite your sarcasm.
Agent Orange was about lawyers, class action suits and greed much like the breat implants suits or the whole Erin Brockovitch legal scam.

 

Hey, I was only pointing to what other people have said. I am sure loads of us have seen articles regarding the radioactivity of shot Iraqy tanks.

asbestos is a good comparison in that it's not dangerous to handle either and has been used in various forms for 100 years and was still be made and used upto 10 years ago. One particle of asbestos can kill though.

Most of the artciles I have seen regarding DPU dangers do relate to dust partcles

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/stand/du.html
http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/faq/du_faq.shtml

Both sides of the story are listed here. Make of it as you will

FNG

PS

Are you saying that Agent Orange is safe?

 

...and up until then there was no direct evidence that it was bad for you.

Potentially a very good analogy!

 

It's been known that some forms of asbestos were dangerous since the 60's

http://www.wisegeek.com/is-asbestos-dangerous.htm

I do despair of posting web links though as websites can be inaccurate and biased. Thats why I don't post links especially with military matters. I personaly don't own any reference books which often give more accurate answers and greater detail.

FNG

 

Fng wrote:

Safe? Depends..
to eat..no.
For use as a defoliant..reasonably so

Do you know of any scientific studies that have linked the hodge podge of claimed ill effects from Agent Orange with exposure to the agent?
Objective data that had nothing to do with obtaining government benefits or cash settlements or class cation windfalls for law firms?

 

All this reminds me of 'Gulf War Syndrome'...

 

I don't know of anything specific, the VA site has loads of information on it though.

The National Insitute of Enviromental Health Services in the US (government body?) also lists the main ingrediant of Agent Orange as a known carcinogen

FNG

 

Ricky wrote:

Exactly. There will always be some who try to "cash in".


FNG wrote:

No doubt. Many things (especially herbacide, insecticides, fungicides etc.)
are known carcinogens. Ingredients in the petrol you put in your auto, perhaps some of the household cleaners in your house are carinogenic( at some concentration) if ingested.
I doubt know of anyone who ingested Agent Orange, do you?

 

Well, not anybody who deliberately drank a quart of the stuff, no.
However one could easily get into the whole:
I ate/drank contaminated foodstuffs/water from the sprayed area
I was underneith the spraying aircraft (although this would apply mostly to Vietnamise civilians & VC/NVA rather than US servicemen)
etc etc

Whether this is a worthwhile area to go into...

Mind you - what were the effects of the use of Agent Orange on the civilian (and animal) population who now live in those areas? I'm prepared to bet no study was made...

 

Hi Gregg

Agent Orange - Harmless???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 494347.stm

"However, in 1984, chemical companies that manufactured the Agent paid $180m into a fund for United States veterans following a lawsuit. They did not, however, admit any wrongdoing."

Yes, these people are just cashing in on what is obviously made up to diss the good old US of A.

I'm sorry but whoever through that the mass use of extremly powerfull weedkillers would have no side effects must have been either deluded or naive. Have you ever read the warnings on modern weedkiller packets?

FNG

 

FNG wrote:

Who said it was harmless? Reread my comment. It is harmful to plantlife. It is likely harmful to humans if they ingest it in sufficient quantities.

I believe I mentioned greed as the motivation not a desire to "diss the good old US of A" as you so quaintly put it. Please do not put words in my mouth to suit your own opinions. Apparently you are not familiar with class action lawsuits and how lucrative they can be to "creative" law firms. One need only force a settlement, without proving any actual harm
or establishing a scientific link between the product and the harm caused. Many firms will pay the settlement rather than face the possibly ruinous damages awarded by unsophisticated jurors. It's a national scandal but nothing is done about it because politicians are supported by , and are usually themselves lawyers as well.

Indeed. Agricultural chemicals are used daily all over the world that are harmful to humans if ingested in sufficient quantities. So what is your point? I still see no evidence of scientific studies establishing a link between Agent Orange and the vague hodgepodge of symptoms claimed by the veterans claiming to suffer from this "syndrome". I am not the one being naive of you believe that because a settlement was paid to end the claims that it somehow "proves" the link. Unfortunately it happens all the time in our legal system.

 

I am aware of legal systems working within litigation in the UK defending PI claims against insurers. Every day I see fraudulant, exaggerated and ridiculous claims.

"I still see no evidence of scientific studies establishing a link between Agent Orange and the vague hodgepodge of symptoms claimed by the veterans claiming to suffer from this "syndrome". "

As advised it contains dioxins extremely toxic to humans. Dioxins accumulate in the body to cause cancers. Anyone eating or drinking in contaminated areas then receives an even higher dose.

Dioxins are also absorbed through the skin during handling.

Whilst they did not admit liability they obviously knew there was a serious risk. Why settle at $180 million when the link is unproven, unless you are not confident of your defence. See any arguement over tobacco and the cigerate industry.

I reckon this deserves a thread in it's own right, Agent Orange - was it useful, is it harmful, was it immoral? to get some wider thoughts.

FNG

 

Good call - can the Moderator please split the topic? (and delete this!)

 

Chobham multiple hits & DU

DU first:
try http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/usachpp ... ionWPI.pdf
and www.mod.uk/linked_files/gulf_du_safety_guidance.pdf and somewhere on the net is a Canadian report, I downloaded it months ago and can't find the link anymore, but will find it on my hard drive if anyone wants a look.
Secondly, "multiple hits", how many is multiple? ANY material will fail if hit often and hard enough - basic materials science. That, AFAIK, was at least part of the reasoning behind the ARES 75mm autocannon, approx 1450 metres/ sec muzzle velocity, APDS ammo and 40 rounds a minute. The intention was to repeat hits until the target armour was literally worn through.
And look at 40mm CTA, only 40 mm (for future MICVs), but claimed 150mm penetration at 1500 metres. Again, enough rounds in the same area and I don't care what your armour's made of.
Oli :smok: