Documentation of M1A2 / M1A1 HC Hull Armor Composition (1996–2016)

[Necronomica]

@senzawa_

That is the definition of conjecture.

And my entire point is that so is yours. Therefore the sources can’t be used as they aren’t definitive.

@senzawa_

You are inventing a secret, second definition of Heavy Armor just to avoid the conclusion.

This ban be turned around against you just the same while the logic still holding true.

@senzawa_

We can prove this is false by looking at the CBO table again.
The CBO lists the IPM1 armor as Improved composite armor.
The CBO lists the M1A1 AIM armor as Heavy armor added to hull.

This proves nothing as the term HAP has not been definitively proven to mean DU in hull.

@senzawa_

If the AIM hull was just non-DU composite (like your theory suggests), the CBO would have labeled it “Improved Composite” or “Special Armor,” just like they did for the IPM1. The fact that they switched to the specific term Heavy Armor proves the material changed to the DU standard.

An assumption on your part. Heavy can just as well just refer to the weight in general and the DU present in the turrets. Both interpretations work just as well and covers all basses.

@senzawa_

You claim the “5 prototypes” explanation covers everything. It doesn’t.

By pure logic and semantics it does.

@senzawa_

NRC License SUB-1536 was amended in 2016 to verify authorized use for “Tank Turrets and Hulls.”
If DU hulls were only an abandoned experiment on 5 old tanks from the 1990s, why did the NRC actively reiterate the authorization for Hulls in a current license amendment 20 years later?

I have no idea and any sort of answer from any side of the argument would be speculative. Same with why it was removed before that. We don’t know and can only guess. And guesses are not accepted for reporting.

@senzawa_

You don’t maintain a live federal license for unlimited production of a feature that you abandoned two decades ago.

The licence still covers the DU turrets and the 5 prototypes. There was no need to “maintain” it as the expire date was 2016. They didn’t need to do anything about it.

@senzawa_

You are performing mental gymnastics to argue that “Heavy Armor in Hull” means “Non-Heavy Armor in Hull” just to protect the “5 Tank” myth. The Name is Heavy Armor. The Material is DU. The Location is Hull. Logic dictates the conclusion.

No no, You are arguing for the term HAP to mean DU in all it’s parts. That is where you’re faltering. Already at the first step. I agree that every subsequent step logically tracks if that is the case. but if you’re wrong there and the HAP only has DU in the turrets then all other subsequent sources still hold true with my explanations. You’re only dismissing the explanations of the subsequent sources because you fail to accept that there are more than one way to interpret the HAP definition. If you accept that there is more than one way to read the HAP definition then there is no faulty logic in the rest.

The Supplement F of the previously linked document only mentions risk for maintenance personell when in contact with the turret:

You and i are both doing the exact same thing here, i’m just walking ion one direction and you the other. My point is that both ways to walk could be correct and we have no way to know since the sources are inconclusive. So they can’t be used to definitively argue in either direction.

Heavy armor can still mean other kinds of non DUY armor and be present in the hull. If the term “HAP” is “increased armor value and weight” then there is no mental gymnastics involved. There has been no definition that all the parts must contain DU for the packet to be called HAP.

[141_allen]

This however is the only source that specifically says no to DU on Abrams hull. Yours does not, your source needs to say that the US fed is consistent with congress, which are two different parties and have nothing to do with each other, and that was by design. Your interpretation is understandable, but a massive stretch.

[senzawa]

You are citing a medical manual from 2001 to disprove a Congressional Budget Office audit from 2006.

The CBO report came out five years later. In that time, the M1A1 AIM fleet-wide refurbishment program ramped up.

A medical manual provides general safety tips for doctors. It is not an engineering document or a production record. The CBO report specifically audited the manufacturing budget for the AIM program.

If the CBO told Congress in 2006 that the Army was paying for Heavy Armor in the hull, that overrides an outdated medical guide from 2001. Old data does not disprove new data. You are arguing that because a 25 year old first aid book didn’t update its text, the multi-million dollar upgrade program listed in the federal budget never happened.

[senzawa]

You are claiming that Heavy Armor could just refer to weight. That interpretation is factually impossible because of the text in the Federal Register.

Section 3, Paragraph A: “…maximum potential exposure to radiation from the Heavy Armor System…”

General weight does not emit radiation. Steel does not emit radiation.
The Army explicitly tied the name Heavy Armor System to the emission of radiation.
Therefore, Heavy Armor equals Radioactive Armor.

So when the CBO Report states Heavy armor added to hull, it effectively states Radioactive armor added to hull.

Your theory that it is a mixed package where the hull is non-radioactive fails because of the NRC License.
Item 9 authorizes the use of Depleted Uranium in tank turrets and hulls.
It does not authorize the use of DU in “The Heavy Armor Packet.” It specifically lists the Hull as a destination for the material.

If the hull was the non-radioactive part of the package, the NRC would not list it as a location for DU use.
There is no ambiguity here. The Army defined the system as radioactive. The CBO placed that system in the hull. The NRC licensed the hull for uranium. You are creating ambiguity where none exists to confuse the issue.

[kcns]

its 2026, using ai agents to do searching is no different to using google lmao

[Necronomica]

@senzawa_

You are claiming that Heavy Armor could just refer to weight. That interpretation is factually impossible because of the text in the Federal Register.

It’s not factually impossible. It is in fact heavier. I have never claimed the package doesn’t include DU, the thing i have claimed is that there is nothing saying that all parts of the HAP has DU in them.

@senzawa_

Section 3, Paragraph A: “…maximum potential exposure to radiation from the Heavy Armor System…”

If only the turret part has DU in it that statement still holds true.

@senzawa_

General weight does not emit radiation. Steel does not emit radiation.
The Army explicitly tied the name Heavy Armor System to the emission of radiation.
Therefore, Heavy Armor equals Radioactive Armor.

Here is another fault, your synonymizing “Heavy Armor System” with “Heavy Armor” .

So the last conclusion isn’t AUTOMATICALLY so.

@senzawa_

So when the CBO Report states Heavy armor added to hull, it effectively states Radioactive armor added to hull.

Not by default. You have defined things one way but that is not the only way so this conclusion is not the only one.

@senzawa_

Your theory that it is a mixed package where the hull is non-radioactive fails because of the NRC License.

It doesn’t.

@senzawa_

Item 9 authorizes the use of Depleted Uranium in tank turrets and hulls.

Yes, but does not force them to apply it to every tank. 5 prototypes is enough to cover it.

@senzawa_

If the hull was the non-radioactive part of the package, the NRC would not list it as a location for DU use.

Yes, they would have to for the 5 prototypes either way.

@senzawa_

There is no ambiguity here.

There is.

@senzawa_

The Army defined the system as radioactive.

Yes, but not all parts by definition (nails in box). Your making assumptions.

@senzawa_

The CBO placed that system in the hull.

Yes, that doesn’t mean it’s DU there.

@senzawa_

The NRC licensed the hull for uranium.

For the 5 prototypes.

@senzawa_

You are creating ambiguity where none exists to confuse the issue.

The ambiguity is already there, you’re just failing to see it.

If you cannot hold a logical argumentation where you are able to see the validity in both sides of the discussion then there is no point for me to continue arguing here. Both our arguments are not mutually exclusive within the limited evidence and the limited premises provided. If you cannot see that then there is really no point in continuing here.

All i can say is that your arguments will not in any way hold up for bug reporting this to Gaijin. With the sources provided they are inconclusive at best. (Edit: here are the developers answers from when this was brought up years ago: Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams )

I hope you at some point realize your mistakes in your arguments and logic here, it will greatly help you in your search for better sources in the future and make for more constructive arguments and solutions to problems and discussions.

[senzawa]

You are claiming both arguments have equal validity. They do not.

My argument relies on the standard government definitions:

1. The Federal Register defines Heavy Armor as the radioactive DU package.

2. The CBO Report uses that exact capitalized term to describe the upgrade to the M1A1 AIM hull.

3. The NRC License lists the hull as a radioactive component.
   This requires no assumptions. It just requires reading the text.

Your argument, however, relies on a massive assumption:
You assume that the CBO used the term Heavy Armor in the 2006 audit to describe a non-radioactive composite for the AIM fleet, even though the Army defined Heavy Armor as radioactive in the Federal Register, and even though the CBO used the term Improved Composite for the IPM1 in the very same table.

You are forcing a scenario where the Army uses one specific legal term (Heavy Armor) to mean two completely different materials (DU and Non-DU) depending on whether it is convenient for your 5-tank theory.

That is not a valid alternative interpretation. That is assigning a contradictory definition to a federal document to create ambiguity where none exists.

And regarding the NRC license. You keep saying the 5 prototypes cover it.
Item 9 authorizes the possession of DU Hulls.
If the hull was the non-radioactive nail in your box analogy, the NRC would have NO jurisdiction to license it. The fact that they license the hull proves the hull is the radioactive nail.

You are choosing to believe that a restriction on a schoolhouse site license overrides the mass-production audit of the Congressional Budget Office.

[Ge_Low-psn]

@Necronomica

Not really a valid source in my opinion, it’s a student thesis and probably wouldn’t classify as a secondary source.

I have a document of armor profile from swedish 1994 trails of the m1a2 but I don’t know if theyre classified, can i send them to you and check it out?

[HOMINUSNOCTURNO-live]

I mean thats all more proof than the KH38MT got and its in the game 😂😂 i love me some bias on what to add and what not.

[Necronomica]

@senzawa_

My argument relies on the standard government definitions:

There are no standard government definitions. You are placing meaning into sentences that does not explicitly state those things.

@senzawa_

The Federal Register defines Heavy Armor as the radioactive DU package.

Your falling into the “A equals B so therefore B must equal A” fallacy.

All dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs.

I highly recommend taking a course or two in Scientific theory and Scientific philosophy.

@senzawa_

The CBO Report uses that exact capitalized term to describe the upgrade to the M1A1 AIM hull.

See above.

@senzawa_

The NRC License lists the hull as a radioactive component.

It states that they are allowed to have them, not that all of them are.

@senzawa_

You assume that the CBO used the term Heavy Armor in the 2006 audit to describe a non-radioactive composite for the AIM fleet, even though the Army defined Heavy Armor as radioactive in the Federal Register, and even though the CBO used the term Improved Composite for the IPM1 in the very same table.

The CBO source mentions both hull and turret. The turret can be radioactive and the hull not radioactive in both sources without failing to meet the logic i have set out. It fails to meet your logic, but not mine.

@senzawa_

You are forcing a scenario where the Army uses one specific legal term (Heavy Armor) to mean two completely different materials (DU and Non-DU) depending on whether it is convenient for your 5-tank theory.

It means BOTH at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. They are describing a system, not a specific material that is used in all parts of said system.

@senzawa_

That is not a valid alternative interpretation.

They are.

@senzawa_

That is assigning a contradictory definition to a federal document to create ambiguity where none exists.

There is ambiguity. Please highlight where in that federal document it states “DU in hull” EXPLICITLY. If it is not explicit then there is ambiguity.

Please note that that document differentiate between “packet” and “system” . A packet being part of the system does not mean that all parts of the system contain the packet. A room having a yellow wall does not mean that all walls in that room are yellow.

@senzawa_

You keep saying the 5 prototypes cover it.
Item 9 authorizes the possession of DU Hulls.
If the hull was the non-radioactive nail in your box analogy, the NRC would have NO jurisdiction to license it. The fact that they license the hull proves the hull is the radioactive nail.

???
This makes no sense at all.

“You are allowed to have as many radioactive nails (hulls) as you want”
“Ok, i will keep these 5 radioactive nails here with my thousands of other non-radioactive nails”
“You are also allowed to have as many radioactive screws (turret) as you want”
“Ok, all my screws will be radioactive and i will keep them next to all my nails regardless if those nails are radioactive or not”

The above logic works perfectly with the licence.

There is absolutely nothing with that licence that says that all hulls they have MUST be radioactive. Just that they CAN be if they want to.

@senzawa_

You are choosing to believe that a restriction on a schoolhouse site license overrides the mass-production audit of the Congressional Budget Office.

It’s not a “schoolhouse site license”… The CBO is also just a study, not the set budget.

Edit:
The CBO also mentions “heavy armor” being present on Bradley’s and howitzers on page 21;

[HOMINUSNOCTURNO-live]

Problem is we went over this 2 years ago gaijin doesnt care. Russia has to have fake preforming ERA. non exploding ammo carousels and Fake AGMs. US is playing with both hands ties behind thier back lol

[141_allen]

The CBO is not an executive federal agency. Ur entire statement collapsed. CBO does not have any obligations for following anything the federal register published unless it is a law, which the use of ‘heavy armour = DU’ is not.

[senzawa]

You are misapplying logic rules to avoid a standard definition.
This is not a “dogs and mammals” fallacy. It is a definition of terms.

If the Army defines the term “Big Mac” as “Two all-beef patties,” and the CBO reports that “Big Macs were added to the lunch menu,” you cannot argue that they might have only added the buns. The definition carries the ingredients.

The Federal Register defines “Heavy Armor” as the “Depleted Uranium package.”
The CBO Report states “Heavy armor added to hull.”
Therefore, the DU package was added to the hull.

You argue that the License is just “permission” and doesn’t prove they actually mass-produced them.
That is why Source 2 (The CBO Report) is critical.
The License provided the legal authority (Permission).
The CBO Report audited the M1A1 AIM program and confirmed the upgrades were paid for and installed (Proof of Purchase).

We have the Permission (NRC) and the Receipt (CBO).
You are arguing that despite having the Permission and the Receipt, the Army secretly decided not to build them, except for 5 prototypes, and then lied to the CBO about it.

Also, calling the CBO Report “just a study” is incorrect. Table A-1 is titled “Characteristics of Models of the Abrams Tank.” It lists the physical properties of the existing inventory. It uses the past tense “Added.” It is a record of the fleet configuration, not a theoretical proposal.

Your argument requires the “Heavy Armor System” to be a meaningless label where the hull contains no Heavy Armor material. My argument accepts the Army’s definition that the System contains the Package, and the Package contains the DU.

[Kenny110]

Can you pm me the source for this.

[senzawa]

You are misunderstanding how a government audit works.

The CBO gets its data from the Department of the Army. They review the Army’s budget requests and procurement forms.
The term Heavy Armor originated from the Army, not the CBO. The CBO is simply reporting on the program that the Army submitted.

Since the Army defined the program as the DU package in the Federal Register, and the Army submitted the budget data to the CBO, the term carries the Army’s definition.

The CBO does not invent its own dictionary for tank parts. They use the Program of Record names provided by the military. If the Army calls it Heavy Armor, the CBO calls it Heavy Armor. And the Army says Heavy Armor is DU.

[141_allen]

And since u mentioned army, the same applies to the manual, yet the manual very specifically states no DU.

Logically applying the findings of the manual, the HA also incorporates a stronger hull, with no DU, which would mean the CBO is correct in saying a certain armor package is applied to the hull but whether it was DU is ur opinion. Again if u disregard official documents which states against ur sources, which are indirect, this is a completely useless conversation.

[Necronomica]

@senzawa_

You are misapplying logic rules to avoid a standard definition.

No.

@senzawa_

This is not a “dogs and mammals” fallacy. It is a definition of terms.

Incorrect.

Please point out where it is defined that HAS means DU in both hull and turret. EXPLICITLY, without it being explicit it is not defined.

@senzawa_

If the Army defines the term “Big Mac” as “Two all-beef patties,” and the CBO reports that “Big Macs were added to the lunch menu,” you cannot argue that they might have only added the buns. The definition carries the ingredients.

This logic tracks, it’s the first part where the defining happens that hasn’t happened.

@senzawa_

The Federal Register defines “Heavy Armor” as the “Depleted Uranium package.”

No, it doesn’t. The HAS can just as well just contain the package as a part of it. No where is that definition stated.

@senzawa_

The CBO Report states “Heavy armor added to hull.”
Therefore, the DU package was added to the hull.

No, there has been no definition that all of the Heavy Armor System is DU. Please prove this. Not argue it logically, prove it. Underline where the definition happens.

@senzawa_

You argue that the License is just “permission” and doesn’t prove they actually mass-produced them.

Correct.

@senzawa_

The CBO Report audited the M1A1 AIM program and confirmed the upgrades were paid for and installed (Proof of Purchase).

No, it is a future study and prospecting of costs.

It also several times refer to “heavier armor” and mentions it adds weight when referring to the table in question.

@senzawa_

Table A-1 is titled “Characteristics of Models of the Abrams Tank.” It lists the physical properties of the existing inventory. It uses the past tense “Added.” It is a record of the fleet configuration, not a theoretical proposal.

And the source they used for the table in the Historical background section

(so not even part of the study to begin with but just there as an appendix to add context)

Is this random website blog: ( Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide )

@senzawa_

Your argument requires the “Heavy Armor System” to be a meaningless label where the hull contains no Heavy Armor material. My argument accepts the Army’s definition that the System contains the Package, and the Package contains the DU.

The “Heavy Armor System” is a generic term. It is used to describe several generations of armor packets used at different times and in different parts of the tank.

[senzawa]

You are relying on a medical manual from 2001 to describe the fleet configuration in 2006 and 2016. That is your error.

A manual written in 2001 describes the tank as it existed in 2001. It does not account for the upgrades audited by the CBO in 2006 or the fleet licensed by the NRC in 2016.

You claim the Heavy Armor in the CBO report refers to a stronger non-DU hull.
That theory falls apart for two reasons:

1. The CBO already has a name for stronger non-DU hulls. They used it in the IPM1 column: Improved composite armor. If the AIM hull was just non-DU composite, they would have used that term. Instead, they switched to Heavy Armor.

2. The NRC License. If the “Heavy Armor” hull was just non-DU steel as you claim, the NRC would not authorize the use of DU in the hull.
   Item 9 of the license explicitly authorizes DU material for use in tank turrets and hulls.
   If the hull is non-DU, why is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing it for DU use?

Your theory requires the CBO to use the wrong name and the NRC to license a non-radioactive part. My theory just requires the documents to mean exactly what they say.

[kitchkitch26]

I can just feel the goalposts on acceptable documents moving right now.

[141_allen]

That makes no sense. The heavy armor package or HA is a specific armor upgrade, so your first point that IPM1 already has an improvement doesn’t mean it can’t have another one, which also aligns with what is suggested in the manuals.

Secondly as u said the NRC gave a license, which was applied for by the army, and application did not state they have any issues with what was added as item 9, so this was not army’s requirement, therefore it makes no sense that this has to have suggested that the NRC document acknowledges the existence of more DU hulls.