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.
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.
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 They were rejected because the moderators were relying on the outdated 2006 information claiming only 5 tanks existed.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.
The source is Australian Defence Magazine from January 2008 covering the LAND 907 procurement. They quote Lt Col Hayward who was the project lead.
He explicitly states that one major difference between the Australian contract and other vehicles in service will be the complete absence of Depleted Uranium armour.
If the standard US M1A1 AIM fleet did not have DU in the hull, the absence of DU would not be a major difference. It would be the standard configuration. The fact that the Australian military listed the removal of DU as a specific deviation from the US vehicles in service confirms that the domestic fleet contains the material.
Having five hulls made and confirmed is plenty of evidence to have it in game with the precedent long set.
There should at the least, be changes made because official documentation shows a change in the armor package.
There have been changes proposed in bug reports to the bulkhead, the fuel tank protection, the gun shield, and the turret ring armor values and still no change has been made
5 units, and kh38mt still no evidence? will DU affect the rusian balance? dont think so, will tow2b 2 charge affect the balance? no, so why its a game convinient? meanwhile you gave the “realistic” reload to t-series
The CBO report from 2006 confirms the US M1A1 AIM has Heavy Armor added to the hull and turret. The Australian statement confirms their AIM has a complete absence of DU.
If the US hull was already non-DU composite, the CBO would have labeled it Improved Composite like they did for the IPM1 in the same table. They didn’t. They labeled it Heavy Armor. Since the US version has Heavy Armor in the hull, and the Australian version has a complete absence of DU, the difference applies to the hull. The export version removed the DU that the CBO confirms is present in the domestic hull.
The Australian source confirms the complete absence of DU. The US CBO report explicitly states the domestic AIM has Heavy Armor in the hull.
Since the domestic version has Heavy Armor in the hull and the export version has a complete absence of DU, the difference applies to the hull. If the US hull was just non-radioactive composite, the CBO would have labeled it Improved Composite like they did for the IPM1.
There were only 5 M1A1 made with DU hull no other M1A1s or M1A2s had the DU hull it has been explained by the army that is not the case but you people live in this cope land that the army is just wrong and they all got the DU armour in the hull that totally doesn’t break the suspension
