Re: Icons and lbms
 

Not 100% sure about your reasoning here. As a matter of course Uranium is heavier than Tungsten, so DU rounds are heavier than Tungsten rounds for the same length/caliber values. So for the same initial energy (same propellant, same gun, same sabot, same temperature/pressure/whatever) a DU round will simply have lower velocity due to higher mass (kinetic energy being related to mass and square velocity and all that).
Now I don't see why DU rods wouldn't support higher velocities per se. Modern US APFSDS rounds appear to be particularly thin and long compared to equivalents (21mm for the M829E3 vs 27mm for the DM53), and this may give them a disadvantage in withholding the pressures in longer guns (though is is apparently an advantage once on target).
The French OFL-120F2, which is believed to be largely similar to the German DM-43, is DU-based and still slated with an initial velocity of 1740m/s in the Leclerc's L52 gun.
As I said, this may be due to the European rounds being substantially thicker than their US counterparts, but probably not to some intrinsic DU property.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Well check out tanknet for such reasonings. Theres been some discussion about it. However I don´t remember the exact thread, but have a strong recollection that DU does not benefit from hyper-velocities above some limit of maybe 1700m/s - 2000m/s.


Try this one:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=18511

The problem with MarkSheppards thing of just increasing the velocity of M829A3 by 30% means that it´ll travel somewhere over 2000m/s that is a problem, what I´ve read from the tanknet. However, if they chance the round to a heavier one with less velocity, is OK reasoning.

And I know that everything on internet is not true. But lets face it where do you have better conversation of such things than tanknet. There´s got to be a point somewhere, if everybody seems to agree..?

Re: Icons and lbms
 

"However I don´t remember the exact thread, but have a strong recollection that DU does not benefit from hyper-velocities above some limit of maybe 1700m/s - 2000m/s."

IIRC tungsten was supposed to outperform DU, but only at extremely high velocities. These are my vague recollections anyway.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

OK, if there's one internet source I tend to trust on these subjects, Tanknet is the one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Don't take offense from what I said, I just wanted to confront your info with my own data and the low-brow calculation I can come up with.

After reading the whole thread I get a better idea of what you meant: apparently DU loses its edge over tungsten in the higher velocity range (from 1700-1800m/s upwards). I have no doubt better alloys of both metals could be (or already have been) developped to withstand ETC-like MVs.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Actually, tungsten is slightly heavier than uranium. Their respective densities are 19.26 g/cm3 and 19.05 g/cm3. According to a Norwegian science site (and my memory from science class http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif)...

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Tungsten Heavy Alloy (WHA) is usually rated @ 17.0-17.8 g/cm3 compared to Deplete Uranium @ rough 18.0-18.5 g/cm3.