You are stressing over a turret nerf that practically won’t change how the tank plays. When was the last time you died because someone punched straight through your turret cheek? It almost never happens. We die because everyone knows they can point-and-click anywhere on the hull and get a kill.
If Gaijin decides to grade the armor generations and drops the AIM turret value slightly to distinguish it from the SEP v2, fine. The trade is gaining hundreds of millimeters on the lower front plate.
I would rather have a turret that stops 90% of rounds and a hull that stops 80% of rounds, instead of the current setup where the turret stops 100% and the hull stops nothing. Balancing the protection profile makes the tank actually usable in a fight. Keeping the current broken model just to preserve a turret value that nobody shoots at anyway is a bad call.
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?
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?
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.
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.
