Talked with gaijing, they said it’s still too much, best they can do is to add premium ship
aww :(
1 Like
So the Army is “legally required to list every radioactive component they possess” and in 2006 (6 years after the AIM entered service) they stated multiple times that they only had 5 DU hulls.
So either the Army is breaking the law by blatantly lying to the NRC, or the CBO made a mistake in a single table, in the appendix of a document, which isn’t even primarily about the M1A1 AIM. Which seems more likely?
I know you think the CBO is gospel, incapable of making mistakes, and have perfect access to all government information; but if that’s the case why would they have to cite some random guy’s personal website as the source for the information in their table? Surely they could cite something far more reliable than that…
As it stands that one table in the CBO report is the only thing you have to suggest DU being in the Hull of the M1A1 AIM. If you want to convince Gaijin I suggest you look for more evidence beyond that one table because they have already looked at it and (rightfully) determined that when looking at the totality of the evidence it is not conclusive proof. If all M1A1 AIMs actually have DU in the hull then surely out of all the thousands of documents the US government have released over the years there will be at least one other document saying as much?
2 Likes
I’m done, you’re not listening to anything i’m saying and just keep repeating the same dead points.
2 Likes
Can you bring forth the source for the army saying that to put this to rest?
From the Dev answer 3 years ago:
1 Like
I already have:
1 Like
I am not going to read the entire post but can someone tell me if DU is present in hull of SEPV3 or just only on the turret and also if the turret is fully covered with DU or just the cheeks?
We don’t know that. SEPv3 has upgraded hull armor but we don’t know if it uses DU ( it does not have to ). DU is located only in the turret cheeks.
At least DU in cheeks is confirmed right?
Claiming the CBO used a random website to audit the federal budget is a complete misunderstanding of how government reports work. The bibliography lists every reference used for context, so the website was likely used for general stats like range or fuel capacity. But the specific financial data regarding which upgrade blocks were purchased for the M1A1 AIM program comes from the Department of the Army budget requests that the CBO is auditing. It is absurd to suggest the Congressional Budget Office decided to define the classified armor composition of the US tank fleet based on a fan blog. They reported Heavy Armor added to hull because that is the line item the Army submitted for funding.
The argument about the Army breaking the law ignores the difference between Title 10 war authorities and NRC domestic regulation. The NRC regulates possession at specific US sites like the schools listed in the application. In 2006 the M1A1 AIM fleet was heavily deployed in Iraq. The Army does not list combat assets deployed in foreign war zones on a domestic storage license for a schoolhouse in Michigan. The tanks were not on the school license because they were fighting a war.
When those tanks eventually returned to the US for reset the NRC removed the 5 tank limit and switched the license to As Needed. The license evolved exactly as the fleet movements required.
This is not just based on one table. The Budget Audit says they paid for it. The Federal Register says the system emits radiation. The NRC License authorizes DU in the hull. That is three separate federal agencies confirming the name, the material, and the location.
Well, Abrams tanks with U in serial number had DU in turret cheeks for 100 percent, however some time ago M replaced U for SA, SEPv2 and v3 tanks had it from beggining . We know that SEPv3 uses new NGAP/NEA armour but SA and SEPv2 also most likely received new armour. At least Australia dropped american turret armour package for ecological reasons ( and paid for the development of new one ) with SEPv3 so that could indicate that DU is still there ( in the turret ) and isn’t in the hull.
1 Like
That Dev answer is outdated. It relies on the 2006 application note which is legally obsolete.
You linked the 2012 NRC Review yourself. Page 38 explicitly states the possession limits were removed because the inventory changes frequently and is classified information.
If the inventory was a static 5, it wouldn’t be frequently changing or classified. The Developers based that old answer on the 2006 paper trail. We have the 2012 paper trail that confirms the limit is gone. Citing an old forum post doesn’t change the fact that the regulatory agency declared the inventory a classified variable.
1 Like
That argument actually backfires. Australia has a strict legal ban on DU. If they had to pay to develop a custom armor package for their SEPv3s instead of taking the off-the-shelf US version, it confirms the standard US version contains DU.
If the US hull was already non-radioactive composite like Gaijin claims, Australia would have just taken the standard hull. The fact that they had to change the armor package proves the standard US configuration violates their anti-nuclear policy. This supports the fact that the domestic fleet uses the heavy package.
Gaijin claims that on M1 series currently present in game. They have said nothing about SEPV3 and SEPV3 is not even present in game
I don’t deny it, at least I remember hearing some rumors about tanks with M having no DU but australia
case would confirm that they still use it. I haven’t seen source about hull change in australian tanks, only turret so that could indicate that there is no DU there.
Developing bespoke turret armor does not mean the hull is clean. It just means the non-DU hull solution already exists. The US has been building non-DU export hulls for Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia for decades. They likely did not need to commission new R&D for the hull because they could just use the standard Foreign Military Sales hull insert that is already in production.
The SEPv3 turret geometry and weight distribution are different from previous models, so it required a new bespoke non-DU package to match the Australian requirements. The fact that they explicitly had to remove the DU from the M1A1 AIM hulls for the 2006 Australian contract proves the domestic hulls contain the material. The lack of headlines about the hull for the SEPv3 export just suggests the hull swap was a standard procedure using off-the-shelf export armor, while the turret required new engineering.
True, the v3 isn’t in the game yet, but the logic applies directly to the M1A1 AIM and M1A2 SEP which are. Australia bought M1A1 AIMs back in 2006 and the US had to create a specific non-DU export version for them. If the domestic hull was already non-radioactive like Gaijin claims, they wouldn’t have needed a separate export program. The existence of the export downgrade proves the domestic version in game is missing its proper armor.
If you are so sure about it then why don’t you make a bug report about it?
I did. They were rejected because the moderators were relying on the outdated 2006 information claiming only 5 tanks existed. Since we just established via the 2012 NRC review that the limit was removed and the inventory count is classified, those previous rejections were based on incomplete data.
I was specifically instructed by the Community Manager to discuss the evidence here on the forum first before submitting another report. I am clarifying the sources here so the next report has the complete context and cannot be dismissed based on the old 5-tank myth.