Tank Guns and Ammunition

[Damian]

US is upgrading all M1A1 tanks with steel encased depleted uranium armor, which has a density at least two-and-a-half times greater than steel. The depleted uranium armor will raise the total weight of the Abrams tank to 65 tons, but offers vastly improved protection in the bargain. The added protection from the depleted uranium armor is believed to be equivalent to 24 inches (610 mm) of RHA(Rolled homogeneous armour)

Wrong, US was upgrading tanks this way, and rest of the data are mostly assumptions.

Currently USA is designing next generation armor which is preaty big mystery, it will be added to tanks during ECP modernization. We can only speculate that it might contain new metallic alloys (also amorphic alloys) and new composites (also possible nano composites) and dynamic protection as well.

BTW That "Grifel - 1, 2" APFSDS, is definetely too long for traditional autoloaders used by Russian, Ukrainian or Chinese tanks, reasonable assumption is that such ammunition is designed for "Armata" MBT and 2A82 gun. From designing point of view it seems to be focused on defeating frontal protection of most modern NATO tanks, and considering it's lenght, seems that Russian designers have very high opinion about their protection.

 

[average american]

Its simply depleted uranium armor used as a part Rolled homogeneous armour giving M1s the protection equal to two feet of just RHA, even with the USA RHA armour tanks in Iraq, Russians tanks in Iraq never killed a man in US tanks and even other M1s had trouble destroying disabled tanks.

 

[Austin]

I read 2A82 gun is for russian T-90AM or T-90A upgrades and Armata will have a newer gun better than 2A82.

Any approximate penetration value presented in the book for Sivnit-1/2 and Grifel - 1, 2 ?

 

[average american]

When you consider then new armour upgrade plus other defenses US tanks now have its going to be very difficult for another tank to destroy a M1A1. Some of the new lasers are used against heat seeking missiles but there are also powerful dazzlers to blind other tanks.

 

[Austin]

I read on Russian forum 2A82 gun is for russian T-90AM or T-90A upgrades and Armata will have a newer gun better than 2A82.

Any approximate penetration value presented in the book for Sivnit-1/2 and Grifel - 1, 2 ?

 

[Damian]

Its simply depleted uranium armor used as a part Rolled homogeneous armour giving M1s the protection equal to two feet of just RHA, even with the USA RHA armour tanks in Iraq, Russians tanks in Iraq never killed a man in US tanks and even other M1s had trouble destroying disabled tanks.

Depleted Uranium is only part of bigger armor package, better educate yourself using some proffesional sources not that idiotic Wikipedia.

As for Iraq, you also have very little knowledge what happend there.

When you consider then new armour upgrade plus other defenses US tanks now have its going to be very difficult for another tank to destroy a M1A1. Some of the new lasers are used against heat seeking missiles but there are also powerful dazzlers to blind other tanks.

What M1A1's? US Army do not use any M1A1's anymore, and ARNG is also preparing to rebuild all it's M1A1's to M1A2SEP just like US Army did.

As for active protection systems, again you know nothing. The AN/VLQ-6 and AN/VLQ-8 systems are just analogs to Russian TSzU-1-7 Shtora-1 system, the laser bazed AN/VLQ-7 had been withdraw from service because US Army was affraid that system could permamently blind people, AFAIK these systems were not destroyed but all of them are stored somewhere.

As for M1 ECP1 upgrade, tank will receive next generation armor package and CREW3 active protection against IED's, it is not known yet if ECP1 upgrade will have also Quick Kill active protection system included, however system is nearly ready for production, so perhaps yes.

Any approximate penetration value presented in the book for Sivnit-1/2 and Grifel - 1, 2 ?

Svinets-1/2 probably around M829A1/DM43, Grifel-1/2 level of M829A2, M829A3 and DM53, something around their performance.

 

[militarysta]

I read on Russian forum 2A82 gun is for russian T-90AM or T-90A upgrades and Armata will have a newer gun better than 2A82.

Any approximate penetration value presented in the book for Sivnit-1/2 and Grifel - 1, 2 ?

Yes, for Sniviets we can cerfully, and acording to the Russian sources (official) take value 40% better then 3BM42 Mango.
Mango have circa 460-500mm RHA at 2000m so for Sniviet we shoud have circa 640-700mm RHA at 2000m when first value will be guaranteed and second achivable.*
About Grifel - no idea, its lenght is simmilar to the M829A3, but propably we have more propelant charge and bigger muzzle.
BTW: any text about 2A82 shoud be taken whit big distance (whit cerful) -there is many bulshits in internet about that gun, and others.

* it's really significat that greek Leopard-2A6HEL nacked turret (without NERA pannels) where able to windstand (on circa 1300m distance) israeli CL M332 APFSDS whit circa 650-700mm RHA penetration. More then 18 shoots to the turret front. Whit NERA pannels those turret shoud slighty windtsand APFSDS whit bigger then 700mm RHA penetration. Maybe even 800mm RHA. Leopard-2A5 armour was developed between 1988-1994 and finnaly between 1994 and 1998 when Soviet APFSDS whit bigger penetartion where suspected - Sniviets and others.

 

[militarysta]

Methos - how will You estimatous DM43 penetration on RHA plate? It's imoportand due to some infos

 

[Austin]

@Damian , @militarysta Thanks

From memory I was once told by Gurkhan that 3BM59 «Svinets-1 which is DU round has penetration value of greater than 700 -750 mm and Svinets-2 which is tungsten is around 600-650 , as a thumb rule DU round have approx 100 mm better penetration value compared to Tungsten

 

[hest]

It seems not much effort was put on legacy weapons, Svinets-1 2 may fit in current autoloader even without modification, Accounting dimensions it is likely to be around M829A1, M829A2 , closer to the latter in performance, there are also another factors. Grifel, this monster vastly exceeds it is like 3, future M829A4 in lenght (just leading part without propellant part), but it is in another league, not for current, but 2A82 gun, achieving notably higher energy due to greater amount of propellant (higher pressure), higher caliber (125 vs 120mm) and longer (than RH L/44) gun. This ammunition was developed for level of next generation MBT.

Yes, for Sniviets we can cerfully, and acording to the Russian sources (official) take value 40% better then 3BM42 Mango.
Mango have circa 460-500mm RHA at 2000m so for Sniviet we shoud have circa 640-700mm RHA at 2000m when first value will be guaranteed and second achivable.*
About Grifel - no idea, its lenght is simmilar to the M829A3, but propably we have more propelant charge and bigger muzzle.
BTW: any text about 2A82 shoud be taken whit big distance (whit cerful) -there is many bulshits in internet about that gun, and others.

Well for 2A82 we have patent Танковая пушка повышенного могущества. Патент РФ 2311603 and some information, "chamber volume was increased to allow higher amount of propellant for new ammunition..."

"achieved energic level allows to surpass all current serial and developemental analogues, energy of 2A82 is significantly higher than of known Rheinmettal RH L/55 gun. In technical level this new gun exceeds 1.2, 1.25 times"

* it's really significat that greek Leopard-2A6HEL nacked turret (without NERA pannels) where able to windstand (on circa 1300m distance) israeli CL M332 APFSDS whit circa 650-700mm RHA penetration. More then 18 shoots to the turret front. Whit NERA pannels those turret shoud slighty windtsand APFSDS whit bigger then 700mm RHA penetration. Maybe even 800mm RHA. Leopard-2A5 armour was developed between 1988-1994 and finnaly between 1994 and 1998 when Soviet APFSDS whit bigger penetartion where suspected - Sniviets and others.

Israeli rounds are just clones, or based on other models, note also that penetration is given for 60 degrees, and for normal (Mango) it is not the same

About Leopard 2A5 developement context, true, but also note that old Svinets and this one are different things.

 

[militarysta]

@Damian , @militarysta Thanks

From memory I was once told by Gurkhan that 3BM59 «Svinets-1 which is DU round has penetration value of greater than 700 -750 mm and Svinets-2 which is tungsten is around 600-650 , as a thumb rule DU round have approx 100 mm better penetration value compared to Tungsten

Propably, but remember that this was true when WH alloys haven't self-sharpening abilities. Today modern WHA alloys developed in Sizterland and Germany have those abilities. It's first. Second DU is better when it takes to perforate RHA plates or monoblock. Modern tank armour have nothing common whit stack of the RHA plates. And third - importan is penetartion after active external layers: ERA/SLERA casettes, NERA pannels etc.
In fact "mm RHA penetration" is very misleading factor.
For example DM63 have lower RHA penetartion then DM53, but have mucht better perforation after ERA or NERA pannels. And for example DM53 from L-44 after double-working ERA (ex Relikt) have "residual" penetration as DM43 in RHA plate. So it's not so simple.

 

[militarysta]

Israeli rounds are just clones, or based on other models, note also that penetration is given for 60 degrees, and for normal (Mango) it is not the same

Israeli have very advanced APFSDS industry since erly 1980s. And it's strong conected whit germans ones. It's impossible to wrote "are just clones" becouse it's not true in fact.
About Mango. In some sources (;-)) We have Certified penetration at 2000m, 0°/60° 450/230 and 500mm for 0. Even on very optimistic btvt we have "Нормативная пробиваемость на 2000 м, 60 220" So more or less range 460-500mm RHA is max for 3Bm42 Mango.

Well for 2A82 we have patent Танковая пушка повышенного могущества. Патент РФ 2311603 and some information, "chamber volume was increased to allow higher amount of propellant for new ammunition..."

If chamber volume is bigger then "Armata" will not use any known 125mm older ammo -what can become a problem for Russian Army. Or not.
Taking thos draw seriously - chamber is indeed significant bigger.

"achieved energic level allows to surpass all current serial and developemental analogues, energy of 2A82 is significantly higher than of known Rheinmettal RH L/55 gun.

Energy of what? Muzzle? MJ for projectile or for rod during fly? As we can see on example DM53 L-55 vs M829A3 L-44 those thinks are very complicated. In fact max Grifel projectile lenght is like for M829A3 -not longer. Only one possible advantage ic coming from bigger gun chamber whit more propelant charge, and longer then L-44 gun.

In technical level this new gun exceeds 1.2, 1.25 times"

Yeach...sure, I have heard this about 2A46M4 2A46M5 etc. and what? And still Rh120 L-55 is better. So first those gun shoud become in mettal and in reality, then we can judge those "1.2-1.25 times" becouse till now 2A46M4-M5 is still inferior then german ones.

It seems not much effort was put on legacy weapons, Svinets-1 2 may fit in current autoloader even without modification, Accounting dimensions it is likely to be around M829A1, M829A2 , closer to the latter in performance,

More or less Russian sources and coping them polish military journals give Sniviets-1/2 "penetration 40% better then 3Bm42 mango". It give quite nice value circa 640-700mm RHA at 2000m.

 

[hest]

Israeli have very advanced APFSDS industry since erly 1980s. And it's strong conected whit germans ones. It's impossible to wrote "are just clones" becouse it's not true in fact.
About Mango. In some sources (;-)) We have Certified penetration at 2000m, 0°/60° 450/230 and 500mm for 0. Even on very optimistic btvt we have "Нормативная пробиваемость на 2000 м, 60 220" So more or less range 460-500mm RHA is max for 3Bm42 Mango.

They bear much from other developements, also as I know, their 125 mm rounds were made in cooperation with former socialist states, not even Soviet, for example. They are also overadvertised. I said because you earlier used sources for different projectiles from Janes, which give performance at 60 degrees. Difference is from 10 to 20%.

If chamber volume is bigger then "Armata" will not use any known 125mm older ammo -what can become a problem for Russian Army. Or not.
Taking thos draw seriously - chamber is indeed significant bigger.

It is described in patent. 2A82 system allows use of both current and new ammunition, it is compatible with all current rounds.

Energy of what? Muzzle? MJ for projectile or for rod during fly? As we can see on example DM53 L-55 vs M829A3 L-44 those thinks are very complicated. In fact max Grifel projectile lenght is like for M829A3 -not longer. Only one possible advantage ic coming from bigger gun chamber whit more propelant charge, and longer then L-44 gun.

Energy which projectile can achieve (pressure, caliber, lenght as said). DM53 whole has higher energy, but M829A3 can retain more after separation because of relative mass, heavier penetrator as example. Grifel with similar characteristics should not be worse in efficiency, having greater energy overall due to more powerfull gun system. Also note that it is developement of new generation and not legacy, and that RH gun system has it's limitations, much compared with 2A82, so it is normal for it to be outperformed on this case

Yeach...sure, I have heard this about 2A46M4 2A46M5 etc. and what? And still Rh120 L-55 is better. So first those gun shoud become in mettal and in reality, then we can judge those "1.2-1.25 times" becouse till now 2A46M4-M5 is still inferior then german ones.

First RH L-55 is not any better, gun systems are more less on same level. You can talk about ammunition, difference is in lack of effort and autoloader limitations, but it is different thing.

Second it is older developement and less perspective than 2A82 which is another generation. On technical level RH series are just generation behind. About deployment, I agree, we'll see, but have in account all tests, investment...

btw about 2A82, it is taken from official state publication.

 

[militarysta]

They bear much from other developements, also as I know, their 125 mm rounds were made in cooperation with former socialist states, not even Soviet, for example. They are also overadvertised. I said because you earlier used sources for different projectiles from Janes, which give performance at 60 degrees. Difference is from 10 to 20%.

IMI 125mm was developed in cooperation whit ex WarPac countries, and whit low-technology solutions for example. So it can't be compare whit IMI 120mm munition. And those all IMI 125mm ammo is well known in Poland -and it's slighty better then 3BM42, but only slighty (circa 20-50mm RHA in best case). So it's far from be "top solution".
BTW: for what muniotion I used Janes infos?

It is described in patent. 2A82 system allows use of both current and new ammunition, it is compatible with all current rounds.

Oh, good news for russian army. And smart designed.

Energy which projectile can achieve (pressure, caliber, lenght as said). DM53 whole has higher energy, but M829A3 can retain more after separation because of relative mass, heavier penetrator as example.

In fact 20% shorter DM53 (but faster) have exatly the same MJ for penetrator as longer, heavier, but slower M829A3 whit composite sabot.

Grifel with similar characteristics should not be worse in efficiency, having greaandter energy overall due to more powerfull gun system. Also note that it is developement of new generation and not legacy, and that RH gun system has it's limitations, much compared with 2A82, so it is normal for it to be outperformed on this case

Grief in projectile lenght is almouts the same as M829A3, but indeed chamber volume is bigger in Grief. We will see how it bacame in reality.
BTW - muzzle is not so important factor When penetrator overspeed some velociti it abilities going down:

As You can see - for DU rods optimum is circa 1550m/s -exatly as in M829A3
for WHA it's slighty bigger - circa 1650-1700m/s (like in DM53)
when velocity is bigger - penetration abilities going down.
So in fact what can give bigger propelant charge in Grief? It's obvious that not muzzle or speed. Max penetrator lenght is the same as in M829A3 so not whole dimensions -becouse they are like for US made APFSDS. So only one difrence is sabot construction and trying to transfer more MJ but without incarease muzzle (to not overpass ~1750m/s for flying penetrator(rod). It's possible in two ways:
- ultra light composite sabot (as in M829A3)
- incarasing diameter (like in M829A3)
In fact, paradoxically the difrences between M829A3 and Grief can be smaller then we suspected. Of course Grief will have better abilities due to biger MJ, but there is some limit in muzzle/velocity, and dimensions. So there is not so many ways to improve MJ value -and both are used in M829A3. If you want to chec it - just see how thick was 140mm APFSDS for NPzK:

And only due this was possible to incares MJ factor. On Grief draw we have "standard" thickenss penetrator (rod). So As I said - Grief will be better but difrenses will not be huge IMHO.

First RH L-55 is not any better, gun systems are more less on same level.

Yeah sure:
2А46М-4/2А46М-5 have MPa circa 600.
L-44 used in Strv.122 - 710 Mpa
L-55 used in 2A6 - 780MPa
2A46M-4/M-5 have life time circa 500x APFSDS -on BTVT, in other sources 2A46M have not so impresive 600 "Standardschuss" so circa 200x APFSDS on fofanov page is given total value 1200 shoot lifetime.
Lh-44 and L-55 have more then 600x DM63 and 1500x HEAT, HE-FRAG, trening.

Indeed - L-55 have 24% better MPa and 20% life time so they are "on the same level". Not even mentiopned about other factors conected whit material and shooting.

On technical level RH series are just generation behind.
.

Which series? L-44 maybe, L-55 -definetly not.

 

[Shirman]

may i ask one question to @Austin, @p2prada and @Kunal Biswas , gurus whats stopping India and its army to develop DU depleted uranium penetrators for our tank ammo. I asked my uncle who was retired army officer and he said any imported 125mm sabot bought from abroad can be DU enabled....I am very much sure that there are many indian private sector players who can readily convert tungsten alloy penetrator into DU one.....

 

[Kunal Biswas]

DU is not a game changer, For example look at Pakistani made DU rounds which have same penetration value as Russian Tungsten made 3BM42 rounds used by T-90S/72M1..

 

[methos]

Methos - how will You estimatous DM43 penetration on RHA plate? It's imoportand due to some infos

There is still some degree of confusion regarding DM43. I modelled it twice using the Lanz-Odermatt equation using data measured from images and reported on websites.
At first I used the suggested density of 17.5 g/cm³ for the tungsten alloy, but using the given dimensions this lead to penetrator weighing only 3.5 kg. So I increased the mass of the tracer and the diameter of the section where the sabot and the penetrator join (because this section cannot be measured on the available images) - this lead to a 3.8 kg penetrator, with a penetration performance of 617 mm at 60° at 2,000 m into 270 HB steel or 650 mm at 60° at 2,000 m into 230 HB steel.

However multiple flyers (about DM43 and KEW-A1) suggest that the weight of the penetrator is 4 kg and not 3.8 kg. Using a slightly increased density however (17.8 g/cm³, which is also achievable with conventional tungsten alloys) and slightly reduced tracer length, the penetrator weight increased to 3.92 kg. Penetration performance is then 650 mm at 60° at 2,000 m into 270 HB steel or 682 mm at 60° at 2,000 m into 230 HB steel.

For comparision: The M829A1 APFSDS penetrates according to a TankNet member (Lieste) 684 mm at 60° at 2,000 m of 230 HB steel.


Another way of estimating performance should be looking at similar rounds. The Polish 125 mm APFSDS fitted with composite sabot is estimated to penetrate 610 mm RHA. Compared to DM43 it has a slightly higher muzzle velocity (1,764 m/s vs 1,740 m/s), a lower penetrator weight (3,7 kg vs 4 kg) and a larger diameter (24 mm vs 20,8 mm). Accelerating a 4 kg penetrator at 1,740 m/s will lead to a muzzle energy of 6.05 MJ, while accelerating a 3.7 kg penetrator at 1,764 m/s leads to a muzzle energy of only 5.76 MJ, so DM43 should penetrate more than the Polish prototype APFSDS with composite sabot.


However there is still the rather high probability that DM43 might have a special tungsten alloy with better adiabatic shear characteristis than conventional WHA. It has been mentioned in German literature that DM43 uses a newly developed alloy with better performance than perviously made tungsten APFSDS.

as a thumb rule DU round have approx 100 mm better penetration value compared to Tungsten

No. It's rather a "rule of exaggeration" than a rule of thumb. According to documents from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory the difference is much smaller:
"According to Dowding et al [9], the performance of W-Ni-Fe alloys is slightly worse (8-10% less in depth of penetration tests) than DU.". Unless the DU round penetrates 1,000 to 1,250 mm RHA, there won't be a difference of 100 mm in penetration depth.

 

[hest]

BTW: for what muniotion I used Janes infos?

For rounds M829, German, I have seen the same given in Janes, which were originally given for 60 degrees.

In fact 20% shorter DM53 (but faster) have exatly the same MJ for penetrator as longer, heavier, but slower M829A3 whit composite sabot.

And if this DM53 was 20% longer, was heavier while maintaining or surpassing velocity it would give notably superior performance, simply said. So Grifel will transmit more MJ than M829A3 or M829A4.

Grief in projectile lenght is almouts the same as M829A3, but indeed chamber volume is bigger in Grief. We will see how it bacame in reality.
BTW - muzzle is not so important factor When penetrator overspeed some velociti it abilities going down:

As You can see - for DU rods optimum is circa 1550m/s -exatly as in M829A3
for WHA it's slighty bigger - circa 1650-1700m/s (like in DM53)
when velocity is bigger - penetration abilities going down.

First this is just optimal perforation if only aspect was velocity, it is for same constant 10 MJ, while increase in velocity leads to greater energy and penetration, as it is bigger growth, surpassing optimum velocity means only that growth will decrease, but still notable.

It is also seen that WHA in optimum velocity will have better performance, if you have in account that same penetrator weight, at higher velocity will have greater energy, then it is even more pronounced. While also, even in velocity, it does not even reach maximum at 2000 m/s (hence previous efforts to increase it). If M829A3 reached 1700 m/s, increase in energy will overcome smaller reduction, and result in greater penetration.

So in fact what can give bigger propelant charge in Grief? It's obvious that not muzzle or speed. Max penetrator lenght is the same as in M829A3 so not whole dimensions -becouse they are like for US made APFSDS. So only one difrence is sabot construction and trying to transfer more MJ but without incarease muzzle (to not overpass ~1750m/s for flying penetrator(rod). It's possible in two ways:
- ultra light composite sabot (as in M829A3)
- incarasing diameter (like in M829A3)
In fact, paradoxically the difrences between M829A3 and Grief can be smaller then we suspected. Of course Grief will have better abilities due to biger MJ, but there is some limit in muzzle/velocity, and dimensions. So there is not so many ways to improve MJ value -and both are used in M829A3. If you want to chec it - just see how thick was 140mm APFSDS for NPzK:

And only due this was possible to incares MJ factor. On Grief draw we have "standard" thickenss penetrator (rod). So As I said - Grief will be better but difrenses will not be huge IMHO.

It is obvious that big increase in energy will lead to higher performance, be it to achieve high velocity and increase mass, and increase in speed is well out of reach of the point where it will worsen performance. Grief just outperforms M829A3, 4 in energy, and argument about surpassing velocty is bullshit...

Yeah sure:
2А46М-4/2А46М-5 have MPa circa 600.
L-44 used in Strv.122 - 710 Mpa
L-55 used in 2A6 - 780MPa
2A46M-4/M-5 have life time circa 500x APFSDS -on BTVT, in other sources 2A46M have not so impresive 600 "Standardschuss" so circa 200x APFSDS on fofanov page is given total value 1200 shoot lifetime.
Lh-44 and L-55 have more then 600x DM63 and 1500x HEAT, HE-FRAG, trening.

Indeed - L-55 have 24% better MPa and 20% life time so they are "on the same level". Not even mentiopned about other factors conected whit material and shooting.

These are old figures for gun deployed in mid 80s and developed earlier, 2A46M. Mango APFSDS almost reached the limit (560-600 kg/cm^2 depending on temperature), which was similar to contemporary NATO rounds, but pressure was not the only aspect, as if it incides on greater surface (caliber) it will deliver more energy. For 125 mm APFSDS increase can reach 10% (compared with 120mm), so RH would need higher pressure to maintain level.

For Svinets-1,2, it was explained that increase in performance came from use of more energic propellant among other aspects, indeed it uses 4Ж96 "Ozon-T" which would exceed previous limit. New series 2A46M4, 5 contemporary, and analogue to L-55, had increased resistance both to wear and pressure (increase in thoughness of barrel to 420 kg/cm...) among other improvements. Just learn something about it http://uvc.omgtu.ru/images/books/uo2.pdf

Which series? L-44 maybe, L-55 -definetly not.

2A46M5 and RH L-55 are analogues in technical level, delivering comparable energy to projectile. But L-55 is not able to provide necesary energy level, is much more limited, obviously falls behind in characteristics, pressure, achievable energy to 2A82, and has less perspective for ammunition developement. The first is no longer effective against new armour, the latter will pierce anything all the way throught frontal armour currently deployed, or which could now be deployed. I do not even see point in comparison.

 

[Austin]

may i ask one question to @Austin, @p2prada and @Kunal Biswas , gurus whats stopping India and its army to develop DU depleted uranium penetrators for our tank ammo. I asked my uncle who was retired army officer and he said any imported 125mm sabot bought from abroad can be DU enabled....I am very much sure that there are many indian private sector players who can readily convert tungsten alloy penetrator into DU one.....

Though there is noticable performance benefit of using DU and post penetration DU rounds tends to generate fire but DU rounds are genotoxic which is to say if fine power of DU enters into human via air or other manner it can cause long term harm to your genetics and there are many cases of high rise in cancer cases in Iraq where DU rounds were used.

DU rounds can be used as black rounds when there is crisis but for training and not so high intensity conflict it is better to use Tungsten or non DU rounds.

 

[Damian]

Though there is noticable performance benefit of using DU and post penetration DU rounds tends to generate fire but DU rounds are genotoxic which is to say if fine power of DU enters into human via air or other manner it can cause long term harm to your genetics and there are many cases of high rise in cancer cases in Iraq where DU rounds were used.

DU rounds can be used as black rounds when there is crisis but for training and not so high intensity conflict it is better to use Tungsten or non DU rounds.

AFAIK In USA, there are some R&D efforts to completely shift from DU and probably also WHA to amorphic alloys, however how this can be achieved seems to not be detailed by Americans, although company LiquidMetal that is cooperating with Departament of Defence, says that amorphic alloys can be used both as armor protection and as kinetic energy penetrators, and what is also interesting, as the next generation liners in shaped charge warheads.