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.
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.
“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)”
But its the exact same Verbage used in the CBO report. “Heavy Armor added to hull and turret” that means the Heavy armor mentioned in the 1988 document is the same Heavy Armor added to the hull and turret of the A1s being Rebuilt to the AIM standard.
Look at the section for the M1A1 AIM on that same page. The blog text simply lists “Armor upgrade” with no further details.
The CBO report explicitly lists “Heavy armor added to hull and turret.”
Since the specific location and material details for the AIM are missing from the blog but present in the CBO report, the CBO obviously referenced internal program data to fill in the blank. The blog is generic but the audit is specific.
So if Heavy Armor in the Turret is referencing the 1988 DU System what could possibly be referenced later as Heavy armor? Please explain what logically could be Heavy armor thats added to the hull that isnt DU then? I want to see what you think Heavy armor could reference otherwise that would be acceptable as a “Heavy” substitue. Logically DU would make the most sense since it is 2.5x more dense than steel.
The table uses standard sentence case for every single entry. Look at the IPM1 column. It lists “Improved composite armor” in lowercase. Look at the M1A2 columns. It lists “depleted-uranium armor” in lowercase.
Arguing that capitalization voids the technical definition is desperate. The report clearly distinguishes between Improved composite for the IPM1 and Heavy armor for the AIM. If the materials were the same, the CBO would have used the same text. Instead, they utilized the specific term for the radioactive package defined in the Federal Register. Capitalization is a formatting choice, not a material change.
Exactly that, heavy armor, armor that weighs more. They use the term that way 3 times in the document when referring to the Abrams. The Capitalization in the table is because it’s the start of a sentence.
Yes, that is what he claims is previously defined and that they skipped capitalization on making that the standard for the table. I have not see a previous definition with that term capitalized.
You have not shown that there are previously defined versions of those other things that they also skipped capitalization on making that the standard for the table.
You used the exact same kind of argument to argue in favor for it previously. How does me using it now make me desperate but not you desperate previously?
It puts DU armored in parentheses right next to Heavy. That is the official military definition. Heavy equals DU.
If your theory about it just being a descriptive word for weight was true, the CBO would have labeled the IPM1 as Heavy Armor too. The IPM1 gained substantial weight over the base M1. But they didn’t. They listed the IPM1 as Improved Composite. They only used the term Heavy Armor for the variants that the Federal Register and DoD confirm are radioactive.
Found it. Yes the Armor School trained ABRAMS tank personnel on depleted uranium characteristics and risks. The 5 training tanks with hulls were most likely part of that program.
