Overstatingthecase:ananalysisoftheutilityof

depleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetrators
DavidCullen,Researcher,ICBUW

ExecutiveSummary

Introduction
Inspiteoflongstandingconcernsovertheirtoxicandradioactiveproperties,depleteduranium(DU)
weaponsareretainedbyaround20countriesworldwide,primarilyaskineticenergyweapons.
GovernmentsthatuseDUasapenetratormaterialoftendefendthischoicebystatingthatitsabilityto
penetratearmourissignificantlygreaterthanalternativematerials.

ICBUW,andothers,havequestionedthelegalityofDUweapons,butinthepastthisdebatehasgenerally
beenrestrictedtothehumanitarianandenvironmentaleffectsofDU,ratherthanthemilitaryutilityofDU
weapons.Thispaperisintendedtoaddresstheothersideofthedebate,tocriticallyassessandtogive
somecontexttoclaimsaboutthemilitaryutilityofweaponscontainingDU.

WhileDUweaponsdoconfersomemilitaryadvantage,thisadvantagecanalsobegainedthroughother
means:DUdoesnotthereforeconferauniquemilitaryadvantage.Thus,greateremphasisshouldbeplaced
onhumanitarianandenvironmentalconcernswhenexaminingDUsacceptability.

Howeffectiveisdepleteduraniumatpiercingarmour?
ThereasonthatDUisconsideredtobesoeffectiveasapenetratormaterialisthatitcombineshighstrength
anddensitywithatypeofdeformationonimpactknownas'adiabaticsheer'.Whileotherpenetrator
materials(chieflydifferentalloysoftungsten)areofacomparabledensitytoDU,theyexhibitdifferent
deformationandfracturebehaviours.

ItisdifficulttofindinformationinthepublicdomainabouttheeffectivenessofDUandinformationthat
makesanexactcomparisonwithothermaterialsisevenmoredifficulttoaccess.However,internalUK
governmentdocumentsciteanimprovementofabout15%inperformance.AUSgovernmentdocument
suggeststhatDUofferedanaverageofa52%increaseinpenetrationabovethatofthetungstenalloys.

Thesefigureswillnotnecessarilyholdtrueformoderntungstenalloys,orindeedmoderntypesofarmour.
Nevertheless,itseemsreasonabletotreatthemasindicativeandconcludethatonastrictmaterialto
materialcomparison,DUisbetteratpenetratingarmourthanpresentlyavailablealternatives.Howeverit
seemslikelythatDU'sadvantagesasamaterialwillbematchedatsomestagebynewcompounds.A2009
reviewofalternativematerialsbystafffromtheUSArmyResearchLaboratoryidentifiednanocrystalline
tungstenandbulkmetallicglasses(BMG)asshowingpromiseinkeyareas.

Othervariablesdeterminingeffectivenessofkineticenergyrounds
Penetratormaterialisonlyoneamongmanyvariableswhichdeterminetheeffectivenessofakineticenergy
round.AlthoughDUappearstobethemosteffectivematerial,itisquitepossibletoachievesimilar
improvementsinperformancebyothermeans.

Othersignificantvariablesthatcanbeadjustedtoincreasetheeffectivenessofarmourpiercingrounds
includethedimensionsandshapeofthepenetrator.Reducingtheweightorotherperformanceimproving
changestothesabotcanincreasevelocity,ascanmodificationstothebarrelorimprovementstothe
explosivecharge.

1
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org

Itappearsthatmodificationstotheround,gunorotherfactors,whichareunconnectedtothechoiceof
penetratormaterial,willoftengivemoresignificantimprovementstoperformancethanchanging
penetratormaterial.

Widerdeterminantsoftankwarfareeffectiveness
Theantiarmourcapabilityoftanksisdependentonnumerousvariablesbesidesthebasicengineering
characteristicsoftheammunitionandgun.Theaccuracyofashot,thespeedatwhichitcanbefiredin
responsetosightinganenemyandtherateoffirecanallplayacriticalroleintankontankconfrontations.

Few,ifany,ofthecriteriawhichcontributetotheantiarmourcapabilityoftanksaresosignificantthatany
comparativedisadvantagesinthatfieldcannotbeoffsetbygainsinanother.Certainlythisisnotthecase
whenselectingpenetratormaterial.

Thebestmaterialforthejob?

AhistoricalcasestudyofthedevelopmentoftheBritishCHARMroundsandChallenger1tank
Whileasimpleconceptionofammunitiondevelopmentmightstatethatthemosteffectivematerialshould
alwaysbechosen,inreality,procurementanddevelopmentdecisionsaremorecomplicated.Thisiswell
illustratedbythecasestudyoftheBritishChallenger1tankandtheDUroundsdevelopedforit.

Antiarmourtankammunitionisdesignedtodefeatspecificarmourconfigurations.Itisjudgedagainstits
abilitytodefeatarangeofarmourfieldedbypotentialenemiesandonpredictionsoffutureenemyarmour
developments.

Inthelate1970s,effortstodevelopacommonUS,UKandGermantankgunfailedandtheUKplannedto
developanewtankonitsownwitha120mmrifledgun.However,duetoacombinationofexternal
circumstances,itwasdecidedthattheUKwouldpurchaseaderivativeoftheChieftaintank,tobeknownas
Challenger1.

ADUroundandanewhighpressuregunwereplannedfollowingprojectionsofthetypeofarmour
expectedinthesuccessortotheSovietT80tank,butthegunwouldstillbecompatiblewiththeChieftain
ammunitionalreadyinservice.UKDUammunitionwasdevelopedbecauseitwasdeemednecessaryfor
defeatingaparticulartypeofarmourandcircumstanceshadlimitedthepossibilitiesforadjustingother
characteristicsoftheweaponssystemwithoutaconsiderableinvestmentoftimeandmoney.

ConsequencesforpresentdayUKtankammunition
ProblemswiththeChallenger1tanknecessitatedanupgradetothewholeUKtankfleet.Theupdatedtank,
knownastheChallenger2,featuredthehighpressuregun,andahighpressureDUround,knownas
CHARM3.Thisroundfinallybecameavailablein1999andremainstheUKsmainantiarmourtank
ammunition.

Ratherthanthebrandnewtankenvisagedbymilitaryplannersintheearly70s,theUKisfieldingatank
withagunthatistheresultofevolutionaryadaptationsfromtheChieftain,wherebackwardscompatibility
hasbeenaconsiderationateachstage.Asaresult,designoftheCHARM3roundisdeterminedinpartby
decisionstakenforatankwhichfirstcameintoservicein1965.Thelimitationsofthisroundandthelackof
anexportmarkethavepreventedanyfurtherdevelopmentofUKarmourpiercingammunition.

LessonsfromtheCHARMcasestudy
Ratherthanstartingwithablankslateandchoosingthebestmaterialforthejob,ammunitionand
procurementdecisionsaretakenwithinawiderpoliticalandeconomiccontext,whichmaybeconsiderably
moreimportantindeterminingroundcharacteristics.

Sincearound2002,UKplannershaverecognisedthatforreasonsofcostandcompatibility,futureBritish
2
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org

tankammunitionshouldbecompatiblewithotherNATOcountries.However,aplannedimprovement
involvingnonDUammunition,whichhasapparentlyproventobemoreeffectivethanCHARM3
ammunition,hasnotbeenimplementedforreasonsofcost.

TheUKsswitchtoDUammunitionallowedthemaoneoffincreaseinpenetration,meaningthatother
procurementdecisionscouldbetakenforreasonsofbackwardscompatibilityandtosupporttheBritish
defenceindustry,ratherthanmaximisingeffectiveness.However,inthelongrun,thishasnotpreventedthe
roundfrombecominglesseffectivethanthenonDUsystemusedbyGermany.

Conclusion
Thefactorsaffectingammunitiondesignandpenetratormaterialchoicearefarremovedfromasimplecase
ofchoosingtheammunitionwiththegreatestpossiblemilitaryutility.Althoughstraightforwardengineering
principleswillinformthedecision,widerconsiderationsmaybemuchmoresignificant.

ItistechnicallypossibletodesignweaponsystemsthatareequallyaseffectiveasDUusingalternative
materials.ThisisparticularlytrueinthepostColdWarerawhenthearmsracebetweendifferentarmours
andpenetratorshaslargelyceased.Allthatisrequiredisthepoliticalwillforchangewithinuserstates.

AlthoughDUmay,onconsiderationofpenetratormaterialalone,bebetteratpenetratingarmour,this
advantageisnotsogreatthatotheradaptationscannotbesubstituted.Whenconsideredinlightofthe
numerousdisadvantagesofusingDU,ICBUWbelievestheperceivedbenefitswelloutweighthecosts.

Therearesomeindicationsthatthispointofviewisspreadingfromthemanycountriesthathavenever
soughttouseDUweapons,tosomeofthestateswhichwerepreviouslythemostenthusiastic,withrecent
reportsthattheUSisplanningtodevelopanonDUsuccessortoitscurrent120mmDUround.

WhileDUmayatpresentbethemosteffectivepenetratormaterialinastrictmaterialtomaterial
comparison,thisdoesnotmeanthatDUammunitionissomilitarilyusefulthatalternativescannotbe
found,givensufficientresourcesandpoliticalwill.InlightofthenumerousproblemsregardingDUasa
material,thecaseforuserstatestoabandontheseweaponsisunanswerable.

3
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org

Introduction
Inspiteoflongstandingconcernsovertheirtoxicandradioactiveproperties,depleteduranium
(DU)weaponsareretainedbyaround20countriesworldwide,primarilyaskineticenergyweapons
usingalongdartorpenetratorforpiercingarmour.GovernmentsthatuseDUasapenetrator
materialoftendefendthischoicebystatingthatitsabilitytopenetratearmourissignificantly
greaterthanalternativematerials.

Underinternationalhumanitarianlaw,theimpactofweaponsonhumanhealthandthe
environmentmustbebalancedagainstitsmilitaryutilityoreffectiveness.Iftheweaponcauses
disproportionateharmtociviliansortheenvironmentitisnotlegal.DUhaslongbeenasuspected
causeofhealthproblemsinthecountrieswhereithasbeendeployed.Whilethereisstilldebate
abouttheextentoftheriskposedbytheseweapons,therecanbenodoubtaboutthewidespread
concernsabouttheireffects,theenvironmentalcontaminationthatisleftbehind,andthe
difficultiesthisposesforcountriesemergingfromconflict.1

Becauseoftheseconcerns,ICBUWandothershavequestionedthelegalityofDUweapons.
However,thisdebateisgenerallyrestrictedtothehumanitarianandenvironmentaleffectsofDU,
ratherthanthemilitaryeffectivenessofweaponscontainingDU.Thispaperisintendedtoaddress
theothersideofthedebate,tocriticallyassessandtogivesomecontexttoclaimsaboutthe
militaryutilityofweaponscontainingDU.

DUweaponsaredifferentfromothertypesofweaponswhichhavearousedsignificant
humanitarianconcern.Unlikeantipersonnellandminesorclustermunitions,concernisfocused
onaparticularmaterialthatisusedasacomponentofkineticenergyweapons,andnotonkinetic
energyweaponsperse.Assuch,DUweaponsdonotrepresentthesoleroutetoachievinga
distincttacticaleffect,suchasareadenialordefeatingdispersedtargetsrolesadvocatedfor
landminesandclustermunitionsrespectively.Instead,theirperceivedmilitaryadvantagerests
upontheirclaimtobeingmoreeffectiveatperformingaparticularmilitaryrole,comparedto
alternatives.

WhileDUweaponsdoconfersomemilitaryadvantageinthatrespect,andthispaperidentifies
historicalsourceswhichquantifytheextentofthatadvantage,itisclearthatthisadvantagecan
alsobegainedthroughothermeans,suchasimprovementstothedesignofammunitionor
armaments.AsDUdoesnotconferauniquemilitaryadvantage,greateremphasisoughttobe
placedonhumanitarianandenvironmentalconcernswhenassessingitsacceptability.

WhileICBUWcampaignsagainsttheuseofuraniuminweapons,asanorganisationwedonot
advocatetheuseofanyweapons.WhilediscussionofalternativestousingDUnecessarilyformsa
significantpartofthispaper,itisnotICBUWsroletorecommendalternativematerialsforthe
militaryandthispapershouldnotbereadascallingfortheiradoption.

WhileDUhasoccasionallybeenusedinotherroles,2inthemainitsuseisasapenetratormaterial
inlargecalibrearmourpiercingroundsfiredbytanksforuseagainstothertanksandarmoured
vehicles.ThisistheroleforwhichithasbeensuggestedthatDUisuniquelysuitable.Thispaper

1See:ICBUW.AQuestionofResponsibility:DepletedUraniumWeaponsintheBalkans.Manchester,UK:InternationalCoalitiontoBanUraniumWeapons,2010.
GeneralinformationaboutallaspectsofDUcanalsobefoundonwww.icbuw.org
2TheseincludeaRussianHighExplosiveAntiTankround,the3BK21B,andaRussianairtoairmissile,theR60.ClaimsthatDUisusedinTomahawkcruisemissiles
donotappeartohaveanybasisinfact.

4
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org

thereforefocusesonthistypeofweapon.DUisalsoemployedinsomeUSmediumcalibrearmour
piercingmunitionsandinstancesoftheiruseagainstnonarmouredtargetsandcivilian
infrastructurehavebeendocumented.GiventhelongstandingconcernsaboutDUweapons,DUs
useintheserolesisevenmorequestionable.

Howeffectiveisdepleteduraniumatpiercingarmour?
Historically,tankarmourwascomprisedofplatesofmetalwiththemaindifferentiatingfactor
beingthethicknessofthearmour.Whileeffectivenessagainstthistypeofrolledhomogeneous
armour(RHA)isgenerallyusedasabenchmarkforpenetrators,mostmodernarmourismadeout
ofaclassifiedcombinationofmaterialsincludingmetals,ceramics,emptyspaceandexplosive
plates.Theselayersarearrangedtogetherinawaythattestshaveshownoffersgoodprotection
againstavarietyofthreats,ofwhichkineticenergypenetratorsarebutone.

Whilemostammunitionwillhavebeendesignedtobeeffectiveagainstarangeofdifferenttypes
ofarmourandprotection,theremaybeconsiderablevariationineffectivenessbetweenthese
differenttypesofarmour.Theeventualcharacteristicsoftheroundarenecessarilytheresultof
engineeringcompromisesandassumptionsmadeaboutthetypeofarmouritwillbefiredagainst.

ThereasonthatDUisconsideredtobesoeffectiveasapenetratormaterialisthatitcombines
highstrengthanddensitywithatypeofdeformationonimpactknownas'adiabaticsheer'.3
Penetratorsaredesignedtodeliverthemaximumenergytotheareastruckoverthelongest
possibletime.Assuch,penetratorsaredesignedtobelongandthin(thedifferencebetween
penetratorsinthisrespectisusuallyassessedbycomparingtheratioofthelengthanddiameterof
thepenetrator).

Penetratormaterialsarechosentomaximisestrengthanddensity.Howeverthebehaviourofthe
materialundertheextremephysicalconditionsofanimpactalsomakesadifference.Adiabatic
sheermeansthatmaterialsloughsofffromthepointofthepenetratorinsuchawaythatitself
sharpens,ratherthanbecomingblunterasitpassesthroughthearmour.Whileotherpenetrator
materials(chieflydifferentalloysoftungsten)areofacomparabledensitytoDU,theyexhibit
differentdeformationandfracturebehaviours.4

Statesaregenerallywaryofreleasinginformationintothepublicdomainabouttheperformance
oftheirweapons.Assuch,itisdifficulttofindinformationinthepublicdomainaboutthe
effectivenessofDUmunitionsversusroundsmadewithalternativematerials.Informationwhere
onlythepenetratormaterialisalteredandotherroundcharacteristicsremainthesame,soan
exactcomparisoncanbemade,isevenmoredifficulttoaccess.

DuringinternalUKgovernmentdiscussionsonwhethertobegindevelopingDUammunitionitis
statedthat:workthatbothweandtheAmericanshavecarriedoutsofarshowthatdepleted
uraniumpenetratorsgiveanimprovementofabout15%inperformanceoverthebesttungsten

3DUisalsopyrophoric,meaningthatmaterialfromthepenetratorignitesduringimpact.Thisburningmaterialmayignitefuelorammunitionwithinthetargetvehicle,
causingextradamage.However,inthedocumentsexaminedforthisstudy,DUspyrophoricnatureismentionedrarely,ifatall.Itwouldappearthatformilitaryplanners,
penetrationofthetargetvehiclebyakineticenergyroundisconsideredtolikelyhaveadisablingeffectinanycase.Assuchtheextradamagecausedbyphyrophoric
effectsisofsecondaryimportanceifitismentionedatall.
4RobertJ.Dowding,KyuC.Cho,WilliamH.Drysdale,LaszloJ.Kecskes,MichaelA.Minnicino,andMichaelR.Staker.NewMaterialsforTankGunProjectiles:Taking
AimatFutureThreats.MilitaryTechnology33,no.9(September2009):135142.p135

5
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org

alloypenetrators,presumablydiscussingpenetrationofrolledhomogenousarmour.5

AUSgovernmentdocumentfrom1980giveshigherfiguresforadifferent,butrelated,metricthe
effectiverange.6ThesefiguressuggestthatDUofferedanaverageofa52%increasein
penetrationabovethatofthetungstenalloys;thoughwithinthisaveragetheadvantageranges
from12%to157%.Italsoappearedthattheperformancegapincreasedwiththecomplexityofthe
armourinthetarget,andthattungstenroundsfailedtopenetratethemostadvancedtarget.7

Ofcourse,thesefigureswillnotnecessarilyholdtrueformoderntungstenalloys,orindeed
moderntypesofarmour,whicharedifferentfromthoseusedatthetimeofthesetests.
Nevertheless,itseemsreasonabletotreatthesefiguresasindicativeandconcludethatonastrict
materialtomaterialcomparisonDUisbetteratpenetratingarmourthanpresentlyavailable
alternatives.

ItisinterestingthattheredoesnotappeartohavebeenanychangetotheDUalloyusedbytheUS
sincethe1970s,99.25%DUmixedwith0.75%titanium.8ThisalloyisalsousedbytheUKand
France,whomanufacturetheirroundsfrommaterialprovidedbytheUS.9

Conversely,differentalloysoftungstenhavebeendevelopedovertheyears.Itisperhaps
significantthatinthemid1990sthepenetratormaterialsstrandoftheUK'sprogrammefor
increasingtheperformanceofthe120mmtankgunsystemconcentratedonimprovedtungsten
alloys,totheapparentexclusionofresearchonDU.10ThismayhavebeenbecauseresearchonDU
wascontinuingelsewhere,butitismorelikelythatDUwasnotthoughttohavepotentialfor
improvementasamaterial.TheUSgovernmentdocumentcomparingDUandtungsten
penetratorssaysthattungstenprobablyoffersmoreareasforadvancementorrefinementin
mechanicalproperties.11

Assuch,itseemslikelythatDU'sadvantagesasamaterialwillbematchedatsomestagebynew
compounds.A2009reviewofalternativematerialsbytheUSArmyResearchLaboratoryidentified
nanocrystallinetungstenandbulkmetallicglasses(BMG)asshowingpromiseinkeyareas,
includingexhibitingadiabaticsheer,althoughaprocessforproducingpenetratorsorsimilarlysized
objectsfromthesematerialswassaidtobestillsomewayoff.12

Othervariablesdeterminingtheeffectivenessofkineticenergyrounds
Itisimportanttonote,however,thatthismaterialtomaterialcomparisonisfarfrombeingthe

5DEFE11/919NewWeaponTechnology,n.d.UKNationalArchives.
6Thiswouldappeartorefertothefurthestdistanceatwhichtheroundwillstillpenetratethetargetinquestion.
7Davitt,RichardP.AComparisonoftheAdvantagesandDisadvantagesofDepletedUraniumandTungstenAlloyasPenetratorMaterials.TankAmmoSectionReport.
USArmyArmyArmamentResearchandDevelopmentCommand,June1980.fhp.osd.mil/du/pdfs/1999279_0000010.pdf.
8Earlieralloys,usedinthePhalanxCloseInWeaponsSystemandtheDaveyCrocketSpottingroundweresupersededbythisalloywhichwasfirstdevelopedfor
ammunitionfortheUSA10gunship.SeePeterKJohnson.TungstenVersusDepletedUraniumforArmourPiercingPenetrators.InternationalJournalofRefractory
Metals&HardMaterials(December1983):179182andDavitt,op.cit.
9Trueman,E,S.Black,andD.Read.CharacterisationofDepletedUranium(DU)fromanUnfiredCHARM3Penetrator.ScienceofTheTotalEnvironment327,no.1
3(July2004):337340,p337ValrieChazel,PascaleHoupert,andFranoisPaquet.DepletedUraniumUsedinWeaponsandtheFrenchNuclearIndustry.InDepleted
Uranium:Properties,Uses,andHealthConsequences,editedbyAlexandraCMiller,2153.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress,2007,p25.
10SeeRJMills.AnnualAssignmentReportArmouredFightingVehicles(LightAndHeavy)RO5A120mmStretchProgram,April26,1995.TankMuseum
Archive,Bovington.p65,whereitisstatedthatthepenetratormaterialcomponentoftheprogrammehasaparticularfocusontungstenalloys,butnomentionismadeof
DU.
11Davitt,op.cit.,p8
12Dowdinget.al,op.cit,.p135138

6
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org

soledeterminantofthemilitaryutilityofDUweapons.Penetratormaterialisonlyoneamong
manyvariableswhichdeterminetheeffectivenessofakineticenergyround.AlthoughDUappears
tobethemosteffectivematerial,itisquitepossibletoachievesimilarimprovementsin
performancebyothermeans.

Othersignificantvariablesthatcanbeadjustedtoincreasetheeffectivenessofarmourpiercing
roundsincludethedimensionsandshapeoftheroundparticularlyincreasingtheratioofthe
lengthtothediameter.Reducingtheweightorotherperformanceimprovingchangestothesabot
(thepartoftheroundwhichallowsthethinsubcalibrepenetratortositwithinthelargerbarrel)
canincreasevelocity,ascanmodificationstothebarrelorimprovementstotheexplosivecharge.13

Forexample,thepenetrationabilityoftheUSM829roundhasbeenimprovedbyincreasingits
length,andalsobyusinglightermaterialsforthesabot.Similarly,ammunitionfortheGerman
Leopard2tankhasbeenimprovedbymodificationstothepenetrator,sabotandpropellant,which
haveincreasedthepenetratorweightbuthavealsomeantthattheroundleavesthebarrelwith
increasedkineticenergy.14LaterversionsoftheLeopard2arealsofittedwithalongergunbarrel.
Thismeansthattheexplosiveforceofthechargehaslongertoactonthepenetratorasittravels
upthebarrel,increasingthevelocityoftheround.15

Thissuggeststhatmodificationstotheround,gunorotherfactors,whichareunconnectedtothe
choiceofpenetratormaterial,willoftengivemoresignificantimprovementstoperformancethan
changingpenetratormaterial.ThisisclearlyshowningovernmentdocumentsfromDUuserstates
which,whendiscussingotherchangestoammunition,statethatthesechangeswillgivegreater
improvementsinperformancethanthedifferencebetweenDUandalternativematerials.

Forexample,UKgovernmentpapersdatingfrom1978whenthedecisionwasmadetodevelopa
finstabilised120mmAPFSDSround,insteadofthethentraditionalAPDSround,16statethataDU
APDSroundwouldnotbeequaltotheprojectedadvancesinSovietarmour,andthereforea
tungstenAPFSDSroundshouldbedevelopedinstead.17

Similarly,whendiscussingthepossibilitythatpoliticalobjectionstoDUweaponscouldprevent
thembeingdeployedtoNATOforcesinEurope,a1980USdocumentpredictsthatthecapabilities
oftheDUXM774roundcouldbeexceededbyatungstenversionoftheXM833round,its
successor.18

Widerdeterminantsoftankwarfareeffectiveness
Theantiarmourcapabilityoftanks19isdependentonnumerousvariablesbesidesthebasic

13R.M.Orgorkiewicz.TransformingtheTank.JanesInternationalDefenceReview(October1997):3039.
14Ness,LelandS,andAnthonyGWilliams.JanesAmmunitionHandbook20102011.Coulsdon:IHSJanes,2010.pp404405418421.
15RupertPengelley.120mmSmoothboreDevelopersVieforLeadershipinLightWeightandLethality.JanesInternationalDefenceReview(May1,2004).
16Priortotheadventof120mmguns,mosttankgunswererifledtogivetheroundsspinastheyflew.Thespinoftheroundgivesitstabilityinflighttherebyincreasing
theaccuracyoftheshot.RifledgunsfiredArmourPiercingDiscardingSabot(APDS)rounds.ArmourPiercingFinStabilisedDiscardingSabot(APFSDS)roundsare
equippedwithfinswhichgivethemspininsteadandcanbefiredfromsmoothboreguns,whichallowsforagreatermaximummuzzlevelocity.
17R.A.R.D.ETechnicalProjectDocument22/78(Tk.Wpns)M.V.E.E.FVT35/563AnImprovedKineticEnergyRoundforChieftain.MinistryofDefence,April
1978.22/78p8
18Davitt,op.cit.,p20.
19Althoughthishashistoricallybeenthetypeofencounterthattankshaveprimarilybeendesignedfor,itisamatterofsomedebatewhetheritisasrelevantto
contemporarytankwarfare.However,asDUroundsareantiarmourroundsdesignedwiththistypeofencounterinmind,itistheappropriatecontextforjudgingtheir
effectiveness.

7
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org

engineeringcharacteristicsoftheammunitionandgun.20Theaccuracyofashot,thespeedat
whichitcanbefiredinresponsetosightinganenemyandtherateoffirecanallplayacriticalrole
intankontankconfrontations.21

Significantfactorsthen,gobeyondeventechnologicalimprovementssuchastargetingsystems
andengines.Theyalsoincludefactorssuchascrewtraining,doctrineandergonomics,22allof
whichmustbeincorporatedintodecisionmakingatthedesignandprocurementstage.Assuch,it
isamistaketofixateononeparticularvariable,inthiscasepenetratormaterial,andover
emphasiseitsimportancetotheexclusionofallothers.

Whilemanyofthesemetricsmaybeimprovedwithoutcompromisingontheothers;anditmight
besupposedthatdesignerswillstrivetomaximiseperformanceoneachconceivablecriterion,in
realityattentionandresearchfundingcanonlybediverteddownalimitednumberofavenues.

Few,ifany,ofthecriteriawhichcontributetotheantiarmourcapabilityoftanksaresosignificant
thatanycomparativedisadvantagesinthatfieldcannotbeoffsetbygainsinanother.Certainlythis
isnotthecasewhenselectingpenetratormaterial.

Thebestmaterialforthejob?

AhistoricalcasestudyofthedevelopmentoftheBritishCHARMroundsandChallenger1tank
Whileasimpleconceptionofammunitiondevelopmentmightstatethatthemosteffective
materialshouldalwaysbechosen,inreality,procurementanddevelopmentdecisionsaremore
complicated.ThisisbestillustratedusingacasestudyoftheBritishChallenger1tankandtheDU
roundsdevelopedforit,andthecontextwhichinformedthesedevelopmentchoices.

Ratherthanaimingforanabstractmaximumeffectiveness,antiarmourtankammunitionis
designedtodefeatspecificarmourconfigurations.Itisjudgedagainstitsabilitytodefeatarangeof
armourfieldedbypotentialenemiesandonpredictionsoffutureenemyarmourdevelopments.At
thetimewhentheChallengeranditsammunitionwerebeingdeveloped,thisspecificallymeant
Soviettankarmour.

Inthe1970s,atrilateralagreementexistedbetweentheUK,USandWestGermanytoequiptheir
tankswithacommongun,sothattheirseparatetankshadinterchangeableammunition.23During
trilateraltrialsin1975,theUKfieldeda110mmrifledgunwithAPDSammunition.24Thiswas
outperformedbytwoAPFSDSroundsaGermanroundfiredfroma120mmsmoothboregunand
thenewUSDUXM774round,firedfromanolderBritishgunbarrel,theL7.25Uptothistime,the
UKhadbeenaleadingnationintankdevelopmentandhadbeentheoriginofanumberof

20 These are much more numerous than the few key factors already discussed, and include barrel wear, gun alignment, barrel bend, barrel weight, barrel stiffness,
expansion of the barrel, temperature and barrel wear (See AFV Technology Aide Memoire. Armour School RAC Centre, March 1979. Tank Museum Archive,

BovingtonHDWarwick.AThirdSupplementtoMVEEReport82019AGuideToTheDesignofMainArmamentGunMountingsForArmouredFightingVehicles
(U).ProcurementExecutiveMinistryofDefence,1987.TankMuseumArchive,Bovington.)
21ReasonsfortheDevelopmentofa120mmHighPerformance,SmoothBoreGunwithFinstabilizedAmmunition,n.d.TankMuseumArchive,Bovington.p5
22ThirdsupplementtotheMVEEreport,op.cit.pD
23R.M.Orgorkiewicz.ArmouredFightingVehicles.InColdWar,HotScience:AppliedResearchinBritainsDefenceLaboratories,19451990,editedbyRobertBud
andPhilipGummett.London[England]:NMSITradingLtd.:ScienceMuseum,2002.p124125
24ThedifferencesbetweenAPDSandAPFSDSareoutlinedinfootnote5,above.
25RupertPengelley.BritishTankGunDevelopment.DefenceAttach,no.1(1981),p18

8
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org

successfulinnovations,includingAPDSrounds,thenthestandardtypeofarmourpiercing
ammunition.

Atthetime,therewerestillquestionsovertheaccuracyofAPFSDSroundsbutthedecisiontofield
anAPDSroundwasprobablyalsodueinparttoaninstitutionalunwillingnesstoacceptthatthis
Britishinventionhadbeensupplanted.26AlthoughtheUKsubsequentlydevelopedaprototype
120mmAPFSDSroundforsubsequenttrials,boththeUSandWestGermanyadoptedacommon
system,the120mmsmoothboreL44gun.27MeanwhiletheUKplannedtodevelopanewtankon
itsownwithadifferent120mmrifledgun.28Thiswaspartlyjustifiedasbeingnecessarytoretain
compatibilitywithexistingammunition,includinganotherBritishinvention,theHESHround.29

However,subsequentdecisionswereprimarilytheresultofexternalcircumstances.Firstly,
projectionsforfutureimprovementsinSovietarmourwererevisedupwards,leadingtothe
developmentofatungstenAPFSDSround(asmentionedaboveaDUAPDSroundwasnotdeemed
sufficient).30ThenanilladvisedplannedsaleoftankstotheShahofIrandidnotgoaheaddueto
hisoverthrowintheIslamicRevolution.ThelossofthissalethreatenedthefutureoftheRoyal
OrdnancefactoryinLeedswhichhadbeenduetoproducethem.31Thirdly,projectionsofthetype
ofarmourexpectedinthesuccessortotheSovietT80tankindicatedthattheplannedtungsten
APFSDSroundwouldnotbeabletofullypenetrateit.32

Asthecostsoftheprogrammeforthenewtankwerealsoincreasing,itwasdecidedthattheUK
wouldtakeuptheshortfallfromthefailedIraniansale.33Thetankinquestionwasactuallya
derivativeoftheChieftaintankalreadyfieldedbytheUK,butwastobeknownasChallenger1.As
theChallengerwasequippedwiththesame120mmrifledgunastheChieftain,anewhigh
pressure34gunwouldbedesigned,whichcouldberetrofittedtoboththeChallengerand
Chieftain.ADUroundwouldbedevelopedforthisgun(knownastheL30),butitwouldbe
backwardscompatiblewiththeChieftainammunitiontheninservice.35

Itisquiteclearfrominternaldocumentsfromthistimethatdevelopmentwasspecificallyfocused
uponovercomingSovietarmourcapabilities.36TherewereformalagreementsbetweentheNATO
countriestodeviseaccuratesimulationsofarmourarraysfordifferenttypesofSovietvehiclesto
usefortesting.37ThedetailinUKammunitionprocurementdocumentsshowsthatthesecriteria

26OrgorkiewiczArmouredFightingVehicles,op.cit.,p125
27Pengelley.120mmSmoothboreDevelopersVieforLeadership,op.cit.
28ThiswasknownastheMBT80,presumablyareferenceto1980,thensometimeinthefuture.Priortothat,theUKhadbeenplanningtojointlydevelopatankwith
WestGermany,butthatprojectappearstohavesouredduringthetimeofthetrilateraltrials,presumablyasaresultofthefailuretoagreeonacommonbarrelforthethree
nations.ThetanktheGermansthendevelopedalonebecamethehighlysuccessfulLeopard2
29HighExplosiveSquashHead(HESH).ThistypeofroundwasnotwidelyadoptedbynationsotherthantheUK,andwasnotdesignedwithfins,andsorequiredthe
rifledbarreltogiveitspin.However,asOrgorkiewicz(ArmouredFightingVehicles,op.cit.,p125)pointsout,itwouldnothavebeendifficulttoaddfinstotheround
30DSABoyd.GSR(OE)3758DraftReportforPreliminaryAcceptance.ProcurementExecutiveMinistryofDefence,February8,1983.TankMuseumArchive,
BovingtonR.A.R.D.ETechnicalProjectDocument22/78,op.cit.,p8
31OrgorkiewiczArmouredFightingVehicles,op.cit.,p137
32SeeGSR3851120mmUniversalDepletedUraniumAPFSDSRound.MinistryofDefence,October1,1980.TankMuseumArchive,Bovington.Incidentally,the
additionofalongerbarreltotheGermanLeopard2tankwasintendedtocounterthearmourinanupgradetotheT80:theT80U,seePengelley.120mmSmoothbore
DevelopersVieforLeadership,op.cit.
33OrgorkiewiczArmouredFightingVehicles,op.cit.,p137
34i.e.abletowithstandfiringswithamorepowerfulexplosivechargeandthereforetofiremorepowerfulammunition
35GSR3851,op.cit.
36GSR(OE)3758,op.cit.GSR3851,op.cit.
37Package03BHeavyandLightArmouredVehiclesQuarterlyReviewDocumentReportforthePeriodAprJun94.DefenceResearchAgency.TankMuseum
Archive,Bovington

9
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org

werebasedonprojecteddevelopmentsinSovietarmour.

DuringcivilservicediscussionspriortothedevelopmentprogramforaUKDUround,itis
specificallystatedinreferencetotheneedforammunitiontocounterSovietarmourthat:DU
appearstoofferthebestprospectsofsuchanimprovementfortheChieftainsmainarmamentina
shorttimescale.38Inotherwords,UKDUammunitionwasdevelopedbecauseitwasdeemed
necessaryfordefeatingaparticulartypeofarmourandcircumstanceshadlimitedthepossibilities
foradjustingothercharacteristicsoftheweaponssystemwithoutaconsiderableinvestmentof
timeandmoney.39

ConsequencesforpresentdayUKtankammunition
ThedeploymentofthenewgunwasdelayedduetoproblemswiththeChallenger1tank,which
necessitatedamorefundamentalupgradetothewholeUKtankfleet.Theupdatedtank,which
featuredthenewgun,wasknownastheChallenger2andenteredservicein1993.DUammunition
compatiblewiththeearliergunwasproducedfortheChallenger1justbeforethestartoftheGulf
Warin1991.AhighpressureDUround,knownasCHARM3,finallybecameavailablein1999,and
remainstheUKsmainantiarmourtankammunition.

Ratherthanthebrandnewtankenvisagedbymilitaryplannersintheearly70s,in2012theUKis
fieldingatankwithagunthatistheresultofevolutionaryadaptationsfromtheChieftain,where
backwardscompatibility40hasbeenaconsiderationateachstage.41Asaresult,designofthe
CHARM3roundisdeterminedinpartbydecisionstakenforatankwhichfirstcameintoservicein
1965.

Theseincludearifledgunbarrel,whichmakesUKammunitionincompatiblewithotherNATO
countries,andammunitionthatiscomprisedofaseparatechargeandprojectile.Thismeansthat
thereisnophysicalspaceintheroundtoaccommodatealongerpenetratorthanthatfoundin
CHARM3,meaningthatthesimplestammunitionredesignoptionisnotapossibility.42

AsneitherChallengermodelhasbeensuccessfulontheexportmarket,43therehasbeenlittle
demandfortheammunition,resultingintheclosureofthefacilitiesusedtomanufactureCHARM
3.Whencombinedwiththediminishingimportanceoftankwarfareinmilitarypriorities,these
developmentshavepreventedanyfurtherdevelopmentofUKarmourpiercingammunition.
Meanwhile,theGermanL44smoothboregun,adoptedbyboththeUSandGermanyafterthe
1975trilateraltrialshasbecomethedefactoNATOstandard,andisusedworldwide.44

38DEFE19/267DepletedUranium:UseinConventionalArmamentResearchFirings,n.d.UKNationalArchives.Itshouldbenotedthatotherconsiderationsdoplaya
roleinthesediscussions,suchastheimplicationsforarmssalesifothernationsoffertosellDUammunitionandtheUKdoesnot,andthecostofthematerials.However

theseclearlyplayasecondaryroletotherequirementforammunitionthatcanpenetrateacertainamountofarmour(SeealsoDEFE11/919NewWeaponTechnology,op.
cit.andDEFE19/266DepletedUranium:UseinConventionalMunitionsResearchFirings,n.d.UKNationalArchives)
39Inasimilarvein,thefirstUSDUround,theXM774,grewoutofa1973projecttoimprovethelethalityoftheexistingM68gun,soextendingitslife(SeeOfficeofthe
SpecialAssistanttotheSecretaryofDefenseforGulfWarIllnesses.1991DUUseGulflinkTABEDevelopmentofDUMunitions,
n.d.http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabe.htm.)
40i.e.compatiblewithearlierversions.Inthiscasegunshavebeendesignedtobecompatiblewitholderammunitionandammunitionhasbeendesignedtobecompatible
witholderguns
41OrgorkiewiczArmouredFightingVehicles,op.cit.,p125126
42Thiswouldlikelynothavebeenconsideredaproblemin1965,notleastbecauseAPDSroundshaveanupperlimittotheirlength/diameterratio.SeeDOSWhitley.
120mmTankGuns.DefenceSales.TankMuseumArchive,Bovington.pA1
43OnlyOmanhasbroughtnewChallenger2tanks.TheUKsChallenger1fleetwastransferredtoJordanwhentheUKupgradedtoChallenger2
44Pengelley.120mmSmoothboreDevelopersVieforLeadership,op.cit.

10
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org

LessonsfromtheCHARMcasestudy
Althoughthisexamplemaywellincludeparticularlyunfortunateprocurementdecisionsand
delays,therearecharacteristicswhichwillbecommontoallammunitiondesignandprocurement
processes.Ratherthanstartingwithablankslateandchoosingthebestmaterialforthejob,
decisionsaretakenwithinawiderpoliticalandeconomiccontext,whichmaybeconsiderably
moreimportantindeterminingroundcharacteristicsthanpureengineeringconsiderations.

Thelegacyofpreviousdecisionsandissuesaroundcompatibility45standoutasbeingamongstthe
mostsignificantfactors,thoughitshouldbenotedthatdecisionmakingonallthesemattersis
colouredbygroupthinkandinstitutionalpreferences.ThisisbynomeansrestrictedtoBritish
procurement.AnotherexamplewouldbetherejectionofChobhamcompositearmourbytheUS
Militaryonthebasisofearlytests.46

Pursuingincrementaldevelopmentsofexistingsystems,ratherthandesigningsomethingentirely
new,clearlyconveysbenefitsintermsofcost,timerequired,andreliability.Presumablythe
preferredpositionforplannersintermsofammunitiondevelopmentistohaveaselectionof
relativelylowcostchangeswhichcanbefairlyquicklyimplementedinexistingammunition
accordingtorequirements.Thesechangescanbeimplementedagainstabackdropoflongerterm,
moreinvestigativeresearchintomorefundamentalchanges.

Theaimofthisstanceistoensurethatwhenincrementalchangesarenolongersufficientor
practical,thecostsandbenefitsofdifferentdevelopmentoptionsarewellunderstood,andthe
timescaleandcostofdevelopingprototypesintoservicecanbeestimatedwithsufficientaccuracy.
TowardstheendoftheColdWar,severalsignificantstepchangesintankgunsystemswere
envisaged,withanunderstandingthatacommon140mmNATOgunwouldbedeveloped.Thiswas
thenlikelytobereplacedwithagunusingelectromagneticpropulsion.47Intheevent,neitherof
thesedevelopmentshasbeendeemednecessary,duetotheendoftheColdWarandthe
considerableslowingofRussiantankdevelopment.48Instead,NATOtankammunitiondevelopment
hasrestricteditselftoimproving120mmammunition.

Sincearound2002,UKplannershaverecognisedthatforreasonsofcostandcompatibility,future
Britishtankammunitionwouldhavetobesmoothboreammunitionofthetypeusedbyother
NATOcountries.49Tothisend,theChallenger2tankhasundergonetestingwithaGermanmade
smoothboregunandnonDUammunition,whichhasapparentlyproventobemoreeffectivethan
CHARM3ammunition.50However,duetoreasonsofcost,thisupgradehasnotbeenimplemented.

45ThoughitshouldbenotedthatthisexampleisunusualinhavingtwoconflictingcompatibilityimperativescompatibilitywithNATOallies,andbackwards
compatibilitywiththeChieftaintank
46ItseemsthattheUSsawanearlyprototypeofthiskindofarmour,anddismisseditspotential,possiblybecauseearlyversionswerelesseffectiveagainstkineticenergy
rounds.ItwassubsequentlyadoptedasthearmourfortheAbrams,butonlyduetothevociferouscampaigningonthepartofafewindividualsagainstthesettled
institutionalopinion.Forafulldescriptionofthisturnofevents,seeKelly,Orr.KingoftheKillingZone.NewYork:W.W.Norton,1989
47M.J.Wright,ProjectsDirector.MemorandumFutureGunSystems.RoyalOrdnance,August16,1988.TankMuseumArchive,Bovington.p12
48Thisisaptlyillustratedbythe2010cancellationoftheRussianT95tank,whichwastohavebeenarevolutionarynewdesign(seeJamesMWarford.TheSovietFST2
andtheRussianT95:TheNewRussianTankGenerationComingintoFocus.AfricanArmedForcesJournal(September2010):1821),butwhichbecameobsoleteduring
twodecadesofdevelopment(seeRussianTankFallsVictimtoIntriguesRusBizNews.com,n.d.http://www.rusbiznews.com/news/n795.html).Asaresult,itcouldbe
arguedthatfrontlineRussiantankshavenotundergoneanymajorchangessincethegenerationofvehiclesthattheUKsoriginalCHARMammunitionwasdesignedfor
49Thefactthatthisinevitabledevelopmentwasonlyinternallyadmittedatsuchalatestage,followingthedecisionbyGreecenottoadopttheChallenger2tank,
illustratestheroleinstitutionalintransigenceplayedinthiscase(seeRupertPengelley.TransitionofChallenger2toSmoothboreArmamentReachesSignificant
Landmark.InternationalDefenceReview(March1,2006))
50ThiswasfirstreportedbythewellconnecteddefencejournalJanesInternationalDefenceReview,followingtrailsinFebruary2006,Ibid.Althoughtheresultsofthe
trialswereofficiallyclassified,JaneswasinformedofftherecordthatthetestconfigurationoutperformedaCHARM3roundfiredfromtheexistinggun.

11
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org

ItissomewhatironicthatBritishgovernmentministersoftendefendtheircurrentDUammunition
asbeingthebestmaterialforthejob,havingfailedtobringinamoreeffectivenonDUalternative.

Theclearimplicationisthat,whileonastrictmaterialtomaterialcomparisonDUmaybemore
effectiveatpiercingarmourthancurrentalternatives,thiseffectivenessdoesnotequatetoan
absolutemilitaryadvantage.Thesameeffectivenesscanbeachievedthroughothermeans.

TheUKsswitchtoDUammunitionallowedthemaoneoffincreaseinpenetration,meaningthat
otherprocurementdecisionscouldbetakenforreasonsofbackwardscompatibilityandtosupport
theBritishdefenceindustry,ratherthanmaximisingeffectiveness.However,inthelongrun,this
hasnotpreventedtheroundfrombecominglesseffectivethanthenonDUsystemusedby
Germany.

Conclusion
Asthecasestudyshows,thefactorsaffectingammunitiondesign,andpenetratormaterialchoice,
arefarremovedfromasimplecaseofchoosingtheammunitionwiththegreatestpossiblemilitary
utility.Althoughstraightforwardengineeringprincipleswillinformthedecision,wider
considerationsmaybemuchmoresignificant.

ItistechnicallypossibletodesignweaponsystemsthatareequallyaseffectiveasDUusing
alternativematerials.ThisisparticularlytrueinthepostColdWarerawhenthearmsrace
betweendifferentarmoursandpenetratorshaslargelyceased,oratleastconsiderablyslowed
down.AllthatisrequiredisthepoliticalwillforchangewithinuserstatestodiscontinueusingDU
and,iftheywishtodeveloptheirownbespokerangeofammunitionsystems,tospendthe
necessarysumsondevelopment.

AlthoughDUmay,onconsiderationofpenetratormaterialalone,bebetteratpenetratingarmour,
thisadvantageisnotsogreatthatotheradaptationscannotbesubstituted.Furthermore,when
consideredinlightofthenumerousdisadvantagesofusingDUthepotentialhealthand
psychologicalimpactonciviliansandmilitarypersonnel,theenvironmentalcontamination,
handlingissues,thecostofdecontamination(i.e.cleaningupdomesticrangesandproduction
facilities),potentialliabilitiesfordecontaminationoverseasandthepoliticalunacceptabilityin
manyquarters,ICBUWbelievesthecostswelloutweightheperceivedbenefits.

Therearesomeindicationsthatthispointofviewisspreadingfromthemanycountriesthathave
neversoughttouseDUweapons,tosomeofthestateswhichwerepreviouslythemost
enthusiastic.TheUnitedStateshastakenalongtermdecisiontodiscontinueusingDUinmedium
calibrerounds.Strikingly,whentenderingthecontractfortheammunitionfortheF35JointStrike
Fighter,theUSlistedthepresenceoftoxicmaterialssuchasCobalt,Nickel,Berylliumordepleted
Uraniumasbeingnondesirablecriteriaforpotentialbidders.51Theylaterpurchasedatungsten
basedroundfromtheGermanmanufacturerRheinmetall,astheyweretheonlysuppliertosatisfy
alltherequirements.AlthoughtheycurrentlyretaintheA10gunshipinservice,whichfiresa
30mmDUround,during2011sOperationUnifiedProtectorinLibyaitappearsthatadecisionwas
takennottousetheDUammunition,presumablybecauseofitspoliticalunacceptability.52

51U.S.AirForceAirArmamentCenter.DualPurposeAmmunitionfortheF35AircraftGunSystem(GAU22A)FinalRequirementsList,April24,2008.Federal
BusinessOpportunitiesSolicitationNumberAAC685ARSS080424.https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=f934399b74944eb51de1ec687f89bba8
52USdeniesdepleteduraniumuseinLibya,butrefusestoruleoutfutureuse:http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/402.html

12
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org


RecentreportssuggestingthattheUSisalsoplanningtodevelopanonDUsuccessortoitscurrent
120mmDUroundappeartoconfirmthispicture.53WhileDUmayatpresentbethemosteffective
penetratormaterialinastrictmaterialtomaterialcomparison,thisdoesnotmeanthatDU
ammunitionissomilitarilyusefulthatalternativescannotbefound,givensufficientresourcesand
politicalwill.GiventhenumerousproblemsregardingDUasamaterial,thecaseforuserstatesto
abandontheseweaponsisunanswerable.

53NATOTanksAimatWiderTargetSetwithSmoothboreAmmunition.InternationalDefenceReview(January19,2012)

13
ICBUWOverstatingtheCase:ananalysisoftheutilityofdepleteduraniuminkineticenergypenetratorswww.bandepleteduranium.org