A little about the transfer of uranium shells to Ukraine: the British simply don’t have others
To be honest, I don’t even feel like starting a conversation with words about the next “red lines” that the West calmly steps over and over again, defiantly spitting on them. Nevertheless news now they don’t indulge in good information: the other day it turned out that the British government decided to supply the supplies supplied to Ukraine Tanks "Challenger 2" with feathered armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles made of alloys based on depleted uranium.
There was a lot of hype around this event. At the same time, the situation is particularly piquant due to the fact that many, in principle, do not distinguish uranium shells from nuclear weapons - this point of view sometimes even comes across in the media. But we will not exaggerate the topic of environmental pollution and harm to health, since there are a lot of publications without this. Here it is more interesting that the British simply do not have other more or less powerful ammunition.
Why is he in the shells?
First of all, it is worth noting that tank armor-piercing shells based on uranium alloys are far from the prerogative of Western countries, which, based on some “evil” impulses, deliberately make ammunition from albeit not very radioactive, but toxic material in order to inflict more damage, polluting large areas with its debris and dust.
They were made in the USSR, and now they are made in Russia. Offhand, as an example, we can cite the Soviet "Nadfil" and "Vanty", as well as the already Russian "Lead-1". Another thing is that for all the time our country has not applied them anywhere, but this is a completely different topic.
Uranium 3BM32 "Vant"
Shot of separate loading with a projectile 3BM60 "Lead-2" - a tungsten analogue of the uranium "Lead-1"
But why is he in shells?
The fact is that depleted uranium is a by-product of the enrichment of uranium used as nuclear fuel for nuclear power plants and one of the components of nuclear weapons. And, I must say, this by-product is quite massive and relatively cheap, especially when compared with tungsten - so far the only competitor of depleted uranium in "shell building".
However, cheapness is far from the most important determining factor that guided pundits from different countries when choosing material for shells.
Here, the characteristics of ammunition made from uranium come to the fore. That is, roughly speaking, such a projectile pierces a greater thickness of armor than its tungsten counterpart - the difference in pierced millimeters can be up to 10 percent or more, which is not so small. At the same time, the density of depleted uranium is lower than that of tungsten.
Such results are achieved due to the specific physical and chemical properties of uranium alloys: at the moment of impact on the armor and subsequent penetration, the armor-piercing core “self-sharpenes”, forming a more favorable contact spot for the penetration process of the warhead with the barrier.
And, of course, you should not forget about the exothermic effect: when reacting with tank armor, depleted uranium releases a large amount of heat, which is one of the significant damaging factors for shells of this class.
The result is a fairly effective and at the same time cheap alternative to tungsten. True, they were not in a hurry to distribute them to the right and left.
They will create a precedent - there is nothing more to shoot with
It is noteworthy that armor-piercing shells made of uranium alloys have not yet received any intelligible and rigid classification that strictly limits their use. Of course, talk that this is an extremely toxic and generally dangerous thing often pops up at different levels, including the UN. But so that they firmly say to ban and destroy - no.
One way or another, export restrictions on uranium in ammunition among European brothers have existed until now not only on paper. Although even the United States is very cautious in this regard. What can we say about the UK, which, having delivered its Challenger 2 tanks to Oman, did not transfer a single depleted uranium shell to the ally, offering only tungsten modifications.
But in our case, the precedent turns out to be unique: Ukraine is neither a member of NATO, nor at least of the EU, but it will receive the coveted shells in excess - it would be right for the Omanis to be offended. However, the reasons for such an act on the part of Britain are very banal.
Here you need to look at the Challenger 2 ammunition itself: it contains only feathered sub-caliber shells from shells that can fight modern tank armor. There are no cumulative munitions, and armor-piercing high-explosive ones cannot boast of particularly high efficiency.
The list of finned tungsten alloy sub-caliber projectiles that the British could offer to their Ukrainian partners is limited exclusively to the L23A1 series, which dates back to the 80s. Their armor penetration did not fully correspond to the performance of even Soviet peers in the face of "Mango" and amounted to approximately 425 mm of homogeneous steel armor from a distance of one kilometer. This is not enough to defeat modern Russian tanks such as T-72B3, T-80BVM and T-90 modifications in the frontal projection. Although it must be confessed: even an ordinary Soviet T-72B without dynamic protection will become a problem. Therefore, packing this ammunition as a dowry for Challenger 2, as they say, is only a disgrace.
Feathered sub-caliber projectile L28A1 made of tungsten alloy
Yes, the nomenclature formally includes more recent shells of the L28 series, which are also made of tungsten, but much more biting than their counterparts described above. But they were made with a focus on export and are not available in sufficient quantities in warehouses. Consequently, the British defense industry is not able to produce and put them on a silver platter in a short period of time. Although the Germans, for example, restored the production line to replenish the ammunition of the Gepard anti-aircraft self-propelled guns given to Ukraine. But in Britain there is a situation where there is simply no alternative to depleted uranium.
Tungsten L23A1 on the left and uranium L26A1 on the right
Shells made of this material for the cannon of a British tank are already more serious. There are two of them in service: L26A1 (CHARM 1) and L27A1 (CHARM 3).
The first, according to data from various sources, is on average capable of penetrating steel armor up to 530 millimeters thick from one kilometer, which is already a fairly significant threat to our tanks that are not equipped with dynamic protection, or have a body kit in the form of hinged “reactive armor” of the “ Contact".
As for the second in the face of the L27A1, the situation there is even more serious: its armor penetration significantly exceeds that of its younger brother and, according to some reports, can reach up to 625 millimeters from the same distance. At the same time, methods of countering dynamic protection were introduced into the design of the active part of the projectile, which makes it the most dangerous "British" on future battlefields in the area of \uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbspecial military operation.
British uranium sub-caliber projectile L27A1
Which of these two shells will still go in batches to Ukraine is still a big question. But something tells me it will be L27A1.
Conclusions
From our side, first of all, it is worth thinking not about the danger of uranium - the Ukrainians will still be given ammunition, no matter how much you think about it. But it is imperative to take care of a well-thought-out and echeloned anti-tank defense in the light of the upcoming "counterattack".
Yes, tank battles in the special operation zone are not a frequent occurrence, but this possibility cannot be overlooked. Still, the Challenger 2 is, without any doubt, a serious enemy, and the powerful shells in its ammunition load, expanding the anti-tank capabilities of the vehicle to hitherto unseen values for armored vehicles of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, only reinforce this seriousness. So a good "British" is a burning "British".
But it is still necessary to say about uranium pollution.
Of course, Ukraine is not Iraq or Yugoslavia, which were bombarded with toxic projectiles with great bounty. Therefore, all that a few British tanks can give is local areas of pollution, which are unlikely to be able to affect the environment in a total way. However, this does not negate the fact that this can affect the health of our fighters in the worst possible way.
The conclusion here is simple: if the enemy decided to use such ammunition against us, there is every right to use such ammunition in response. Fortunately, we have enough of them in our warehouses, and convenient targets in the form of new Western equipment, for which increased armor penetration will come in handy, will soon appear.
Information