German uranium-core armor-piercing shells in World War II

[Ironmachine]

While doing an internet search for another question, I came across this quote from Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich:

In the summer of 1943, wolframite imports from Portugal were cut off, which created a critical situation for the production of solid-core ammunition. I thereupon ordered the use of uranium cores for this type of ammunition. My release of our uranium stocks of about twelve hundred metric tons showed that we no longer had any thoughts of producing atomic bombs.

A google search seems to indicate also that there is at least a mention about this in the book Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces, by Anthony Williams, and I have found some vague references about a Rheinmetall patent for this kind of projectiles. Also, apparently the Polish writter Igor Witkowski mentions in his book Truth about the Wunderwaffe that an area near Mieleck is still contaminated by uranium from World War II trials with uranium-core amunition.
And what's more, in a Spanish forum it is said (in a post dated 31 January 2009) that some of those uranium-core anti-tank rounds, confirmed for Pak 38 and apparently also for Pak 40, had actually been found in the area of the ancient border between Poland and East Prussia (though I have been unable to find any other reference to this).

Now, most of what I have posted above smells of the usual mixture of Nazi supertechnology and conspiracy theories, with no hard data to back the claims. But if the quote from Speer's book is real, there may be some truth in it, so I am going to ask. Does anybody have any serious information about possible development, trials and use of uranium-core armor-piercing rounds by the Germans in World War II?

[phylo_roadking]

I-M...I wonder what the original passage said in German??? We show start off eliminating
a case of mistranslation, or a mapping across of a technical term with no one-word equivalent in English?

[Ironmachine]

Phylo, given the use of the words "wolfram", "solid-core" and "ammunition" I think the possibilities of another explanation are few, but of course what you say should not be disregarded beforehand.

On the other hand, as I do not have Speer's book, I'm not even sure that the quote is really present in the English version. Can anybody confirm that?

[phylo_roadking]

Well, the quote IS in the book, on Page 228. But I can't read the whole paragraph/context via the Net as yet.

[phylo_roadking]

HOWEVER...

from what little I know - THIS -

My release of our uranium stocks of about twelve hundred metric tons showed that we no longer had any thoughts of producing atomic bombs.

...is bullsh1t Depleted uranium for munition cores is what's left AFTER fissionable U235 is removed for "other" purposes So "releasing Germany's stocks of uranium" for wepons' research/use does NOT mean Germany had shelved all thoughts of an atomic explosive....more that the ARMY could go to the cost of extracting U-235 if IT wanted the DU!

EDIT: just had a thought...

In the summer of 1943

...in mid-'43 the scientific effort in Germany towards an atomic bomb faced a massive budget cut IIRC - I wonder if this decision...."incidently" putting the cost of the extraction of U235 back onto the Army Ordnance Office...dates from AFTER that budget cut?

[peeved]

From Erinnerungen, 5th edition 1969 p. 242:

Im Sommer 1943 drohte infolge der Sperrung unserer Wolfram-Importe aus Portugal eine kritische Lage für die Produktion der Hartkern-Munition. Ich ordnete daraufhin die Verwendung von Uran-Kernen für diese Munitionsart an [32]. Die Freigabe unserer Uranvorräte von etwa 1200 Tonnen zeigte, daß der Gedanke an eine Produktion von Atombomben im Sommer 1943 von meinen Mitarbeitern und mir aufgegeben worden war.

Footnote [32];

Chronik vom 31. August und März 1944. - 1940 waren in Belgien 1200 Tonnen Uranerze beschlagnahmt worden. Die Förderung eigener Uranerze in Joachimstahl wurde nicht forciert.

It thus appears that the uranium-core shell production was at that stage to use the captured Belgian uranium ore stocks. Didn't see any reference on plans to use DU cores.

Markus

[phylo_roadking]

It thus appears that the uranium-core shell production was at that stage to use the captured Belgian uranium ore stocks

Question is - what form did this ore take It would still have to be extracted and processed into metallic uranium of some form to form the "solid" core.

I-M and Markus - there's an example of exactly what I mean;

Uran-Kernen

...doesn't map straight across as "uranium cores" - in scientific terms it actually means "uranium nuclei"

[peeved]

It thus appears that the uranium-core shell production was at that stage to use the captured Belgian uranium ore stocks

Question is - what form did this ore take It would still have to be extracted and processed into metallic uranium of some form to form the "solid" core.

Of course but if the plan was to use DU instead of natural uranium it would have made no sense to restrict the source to the Belgian ore. If the plan was to use U-235 enrichment by-products for ammunition production these would also have been available from German uranium.

I-M and Markus - there's an example of exactly what I mean;

Uran-Kernen

...doesn't map straight across as "uranium cores" - in scientific terms it actually means "uranium nuclei"

One would think that the former Minister of Armaments and War Production would continue using the same military meaning as in the previous sentence when he was discussing Hartkern-Munition. Tungsten-nucleus ammunition or steel-nucleus for Stahlkern would hardly be standard nomenclature in ammo terms.

Markus

[phylo_roadking]

Of course but if the plan was to use DU instead of natural uranium it would have made no sense to restrict the source to the Belgian ore. If the plan was to use U-235 enrichment by-products for ammunition production these would also have been available from German uranium.

Except there was FAR more of it than there was German And would depend who already had the German material for experimentation. Don't forget there were already TWO "purist" German atomic development teams at work...before an "applied technology" project like this took shape.

One would think that the former Minister of Armaments and War Production would continue using the same military meaning as in the previous sentence when he was discussing Hartkern-Munition. Tungsten-nucleus ammunition or steel-nucleus for Stahlkern would hardly be standard nomenclature in ammo terms

...which is why I noted that -

But I can't read the whole paragraph/context via the Net

Plus, it would also depend what technical reference terms HE as an architect had been given for particular items. If he'd been given it by a physicist - it would be nucleus; if it had been by an officer from the WaffenAmpt it would be "core". We don't know which briefing he had on the matter. As noted before there's VERY litttle on this, so we can't say yet.

This would REALLY be one for digging in the paper archives.

[bf109 emil]

I think we have both a play on words and a writer using or assume hindsight in his works...

first..

Chronik vom 31. August und März 1944. - 1940 waren in Belgien 1200 Tonnen Uranerze beschlagnahmt worden. Die Förderung eigener Uranerze in Joachimstahl wurde nicht forciert.

which translates into Chronicle of the 31. August and March 1944. -1940 1200 tonnes uranium ores have been seized in Belgium. Promoting your own uranium ores in Joachim steel was not pushed. using this translatorhttp://www.microsofttranslator.com/Default.aspx

which i agree with whole hardily...but Uranium ore is by definition...Uranium ore deposits are economically recoverable concentrations of uranium within the Earth's crust. Uranium is one of the more common elements in the Earth’s crust, some 40 times more common than silver and 500 times more common than gold secondly as Germany's wolfram supply was being deleted, uranium ore by definition is Uranium has the highest atomic weight of the naturally occurring elements and is approximately 70% denser than lead, but not as dense as gold or tungsten.

hence once the supply of wolfram or tungsten became absent, German munition experts need a viable substitute, hence captured Uranium ore...

thus

Im Sommer 1943 drohte infolge der Sperrung unserer Wolfram-Importe aus Portugal eine kritische Lage für die Produktion der Hartkern-Munition. Ich ordnete daraufhin die Verwendung von Uran-Kernen für diese Munitionsart an [32]. Die Freigabe unserer Uranvorräte von etwa 1200 Tonnen zeigte, daß der Gedanke an eine Produktion von Atombomben im Sommer 1943 von meinen Mitarbeitern und mir aufgegeben worden war.

translated again by Bing translator reads...In the summer of 1943, a critical situation for hard core ammunition production threatened due to blocking our Wolfram imports from Portugal. I then ordered the use of uranium cores for this type of ammunition to [32]. Sharing our 1200 tonnes uranium stocks showed that the thought of a production of nuclear bombs in the summer of 1943 was been abandoned by my staff and myself.

hence and hindsight showing post fact that the thought of production of nuclear bombs was abandoned IMHO refers to not Germany abandoning her quest for the Bomb, but the fact that she had neither the knowledge or ability to indeed enrich Uranium and a need for a wolfram substitute although depleting stocks does not show nor claim Germany abandoned her advances into trying to enrich Uranium, nor was using Uranium ore for shell the reason Germany never succeeded!!

IIRC was their not a vast amount of Uranium Ore captured by the Allies in Post war Germany? If so using as AP Shells never stopped nor depleted sources to scrap the Nazi scientists from continuing there work

[PMN1]

How would a uranium core AP round compare to a depleted uranium AP shell?

[LWD]

How would a uranium core AP round compare to a depleted uranium AP shell?

Generally the physical poperties of various isotopes are pretty much the same. So armor penetration and short term effects should be pretty much identical. What will vary is the post event radiation and for that matter the radiation exposure due to the ammuntion. If the shell has a near critical mass then if it is stored for any time their might be deteriation due to induced decay. Obviously if the projectile uses a critical mass things are going to be hot all around. Processing the Uranium to make these rounds would not be a very healthy occupation in any case.

[Mostlyharmless]

Natural uranium is only slightly more radioactive than depleted uranium as U235 is less than 10 times more radioactive than U238 (half life of 7*10**8 for U235 versus 4.5*10**9 for U238) and is only present as 0.72%. Thus a natural uranium shell should have very similar properties to a depleted uranium shell. Even storage should not change things too much unless it was stored under heavy water!

[Ironmachine]

"Slightly more radioactive" is not what I would call it. There is a very significant difference between natural uranium and depleted uranium radioactivity. See for example:

The uranium remaining after removal of the enriched fraction contains about 99.8% 238U, 0.2% 235U and 0.001% 234U by mass; this is referred to as depleted uranium or DU.
The main difference between DU and natural uranium is that the former contains at least three times less 235U than the latter.
DU, consequently, is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

Depleted uranium (DU) is created as a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process and possesses about 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/uranium/uranium.html

The amounts of uranium-234 and uranium-235 remaining in depleted uranium metal are about 0.002% and 0.2%, respectively. The effect of removing these isotopes is that depleted uranium is about 40% less radioactive than natural uranium.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/ra ... um-eng.php