Or its passed as a suggestion and shoved deep into the cracks and forgotten about. Challenger 2s have bug reports with broken bugs that are like 2-3 years old. Not even talking about armour or features, actual bugs.
China/Russia?? 7 days.
I dont know if your trying to argue all of this for the point of thinking you are correct about how the Governemnt generally handles secret or experimental stuff at the time or if your just trying to debate a totally separate wild interpretation that has zero stance in reality of how the Military generally does things in a very intentional way for a reason.
Regardless you are neither correct or incorrect as 5 Training hulls would not be a security risk if they were never fielded or meant to be used in the active fleet therefore explicitly removing the limitation on how many Hulls are DU containers would only mean that the usage of DU was going beyond the 5 Hull limit previously licensed. You do not have something like that removed for security reasons if you are not deploying it in more than the previously listed amount. The Military only licenses the amount it thinks it would ever need. Turrets are usually made in excess because they are an easily changable part of the Tank itself. The hulls however are not made in excess beyond what is specifically ordered meaning if you only ordered 5 DU hulls you do not need to explicitly state that the amount of hulls in possesion is constantly changing. Just because the Turret has DU does not mean the Hull is a radioactive container so why license “as needed” Turrets and hulls if your not in possession of more than the 5 “Training” Hulls? If you apply even just a small amount of Critical Logical thinking Keeping that kind of number classified for security reasons explicitly means you do not want outside sources to know exactly how many you have or are actively producing meaning more than those 5 training hulls exsist.
And again How does the “Heavy Armor System” being the radiactive bit of the armor get applied to both the turret and the hull of a tank if infact the only part of that “System” that is radio active is the package in the turret and not the hull? Thats where your argument is invalid and lacks the use of critical thinking. How can something be called one specific term that then gets applied to both one and the other but only one has the portion actually applied? Thats where your entire argument falls apart.
1 Like
Neither. I’m putting fourth a logical argument that semantically and logically tracks with the sources same as other arguments i’ve seen put fourth in this thread.
That’s the biggest issue, if a source can be read in more than one way then it is inconclusive and doesn’t definitively prove anything. This goes for all forms of research and all forms of science. If there is more than one explanation for something then you aren’t done and can’t draw any final conclusions.
Your issue here with this entire paragraph is that the 5 hulls were not the only part of the licence and they were not on a separate line either. They changed the licence and the line as a whole, not just the 5 hulls. You therefore cannot draw any definitive conclusions on what they did after that. You can make more or less reasonable guesses and assumptions, but they are just that, guesses and assumptions. That’s not something that stands in any research and cannot be used for reporting.
This is how that could be explained:
Think of the word “System” as a parts kit with several parts.
If i buy a “Terrain Upgrade Kit” for my bicycle and that adds metal suspension to the frame and new rubber tires for the wheel rims then that same kit is comprised of two different materials.
Is that the only explanation? No. Is it the best one? Probably not. Is it entirely possible? Yes.
If something has more than one logically and semantically sound explanation then you do not have definitive proof.
Okay lets look at this more simply in terms of the HAS.
I offer paint services Paint for Door and Hood ordered.
I bill for Paint on door and hood.
I paint door
I paint hood
Bill is correct and accurate yes?
I bill Paint on door and hood
I paint Hood
I wax door
Bill is incorrect and inaccurate yes?
So how can Something applied as a “system” or “package” be applied to both hull and turret when you can simply state “Heavy Armor System Added”? You do not DIRECTLY specify added to both if only one portion is radioactive.
To further this the HAS was originally talking about the DU in the turret so that itself was the system was the Turret Armor Upgrade. Later the hulls were tested with the 5. That means Heavy Armor System is explicitly refering to the DU in the Early Turret testing and was latter tested on the Hull and thus “Heavy Armor added to hull and turret” Means DU was added to both.
2 Likes
You bill for Paint on door and hood.
You paint door red.
You paint hood blue.
Bill is correct and accurate.
Two different colors used.
See my bike analogy above, “Terrain Upgrade Kit” added to bike. Are both the tires and suspension metal? No.
I have not seen this, could you highlight and screenshot the exact parts of the documents that says that the HAS adds DU to the hull?
Explicitly States Heavy Armor system has been in use since 1988.
Document Stating Abrams Heavy Armor Installed in the Turret
The combination of all the above is explicitly stating the Heavy Armor System Is the DU Turret package in 1988. Meaning Later in 2000 When the term Heavy Armor is added to the hull and turret of the AIM is stating the DU armor is in use in the hull Aswell. As in 88 the 5 Hulls at the school were being actively tested at the time and they were outlining the Heavy Armor system meaining the Turret ORIGINALLY.
3 Likes
This part here is where you are making assumptions. It’s a very reasonable assumption. but it is not the only conclusion that can be drawn.
The CBO report also came out in 2006 and states that those kits were already added to the A1 AIM since the year 2000. 6 years before the limit was removed from the NRC license in 2006.
Exactly so how can you say that the “Heavy Armor System” Circa 1988 is talking about the DU Turret and non radioactive hull when in 1988 the “System” Itself was the use of DU in the turret?
2 Likes
I don’t think i’ve seen anywhere that states that the HAS was limited to turret only at that time, only that DU packages were limited to the turret.
The Heavy Armor system was directly talking about the Turret DU package at the time as that is what was being applied to the tanks. The Hull was being tested at the time and was not being applied to the tanks that were being produced that was for later models and Zero hour rebuilds like the AIM program. Its clearly talking about the Heavy Armor System being the DU in the turret meaning Heavy armor being applied to the hull of the AIM also means the same Package was applied to the hull meaning the DU from the ORIGINAL Heavy Armor System that was used in the Turret.
2 Likes
Can someone share the full source which makes this claim?
1 Like
Those are all just assumptions though, it is no where explicitly stated and there are other conclusions that can be drawn. That’s the issue. Not weather those assumptions are better or worse or more or less reasonable. Just the fact that other conclusions exist is enough for it to be inconclusive.
The only reason it would be “inconclusive” like you state is if the Military didn’t use plain and simple terms and language for descriptors and instead were using blanket terms and statements. When the Military uses distinct terms Like “Heavy Armor” they are directly referring to the use of Depleted Uranium as that in itself is what makes up the Heavy part of the Heavy armor.
Exactly as I thought. Why does anyone use this source and expect to be taken seriously?
First problem: It’s based off of some random guy’s blog.
Second problem, feel free to visit the blog (which I’ve linked below) and try to find me any mention of the M1A1 AIM utilizing DU in it’s hull armour composition (spoilers: It doesn’t).
https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M1.html
Third problem, even if this person’s blog did mention DU hull armour anywhere, what would be his source for this being the case?
Fourth problem, the first source that’s quoted in the CBO report dates to 1993 and it makes no reference to DU hull armour anywhere, it also makes it clear that the M1A1 AIM addition comes purely from the ‘Gary’s blog’ source.
3 Likes
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is the primary auditing agency for the US legislative branch. They have full access to Department of Defense budget requests and program data. They do not define multimillion-dollar defense procurement programs based on a fan blog.
The footnote references “Gary’s Guide” and the 1993 report as sources for the general unclassified specifications in the table (like vehicle dimensions, fuel capacity, and range).
The line item “Heavy Armor added to hull and turret” is there because that is the specific upgrade the Department of the Army requested funding for. The CBO tracks the taxpayer money. The Army asked for money to put Heavy Armor in the hull, and the CBO reported it. Suggesting that federal budget analysts had to check a website to find out what the Army was buying is ridiculous.
2 Likes
These sources are from 3 different instances. one is the army, one is a budget regulatory office and the third is the Nuclear regulatory commission. No where in any of them do they clarify explicitly that DU is in the hull.
The army states that DU packages are part of the Heavy Armor System, they do not say the the Heavy Armor System only consist of the DU packages and nothing else, in fact they do not even directly state what the Heavy Armor System even is. They in their application say that “Heavy Armor” has been added to many turrets and 5 hulls (they do not use the word “System” here, making the terms different)
The CBO Says that Heavy armor (Not Heavy Armor System or DU packages) was added to hull and turret. they do not specify what they mean by “Heavy armor” (they even use lower case " a " and earlier in the document talk about “a newer heavier armor”) or what that “Heavy armor” is.
Six years after the CBO claims that the Heavy armor was installed the NCR removes the DU limit for possession and simultaneously for number of hulls.
There is no source that states that DU packages were added to the rest of the Hulls after that.
This is why I don’t engage in discussion with you, because you just chose to ignore literal facts when they don’t suit your narrative.
Where did they state this?
Or are you assuming again?
1 Like
The blog does not contain the phrase “Heavy Armor added to hull and turret.”
Since the text does not exist in the blog, the CBO did not source it from there.
The Congressional Budget Office audits Department of Defense appropriations. The program specifics come from the Army budget requests being analyzed in the report itself. Claiming a federal audit copy-pasted nonexistent text from a fan site is illogical.
2 Likes