The 5 tank limit relies on an expired note from 2006. The 2012 NRC review states the inventory count is now classified and changes frequently. A static number of 5 is not a frequently changing national secret.
As for the suspension, the M1A1 AIM program included a suspension overhaul to handle the weight increase. The modern SEPv3 weighs over 73 tons and operates just fine. Claiming the hull armor breaks the suspension ignores the fact that the Army upgraded the suspension specifically to carry the Heavy Armor.
Take the JAGM discussion to DMs (or create a forum post). Keep this thread on the Hull Armor documentation. Otherwise they will lock it under the excuse that it steered off-topic.
bro he is trying to equal the evidence of 5 m1 with DU, i said, why dont put DU, russia got a fictional missile so, usa can get DU with real evidence, anyway, DU will not come bcs gaijin balance
You are confused about which variants are listed in the Congressional Budget Office report.
Look at Table A-1 again. It does not list the M1A1HA. It explicitly lists the M1A1 AIM, introduced in 2000.
The table draws a clear distinction between the armor packages. It lists the IPM1 as having Improved composite armor. It lists the M1A1 AIM as having Heavy armor added to hull and turret.
That is the official documentation showing the change in the armor package you are asking for. It specifically identifies the M1A1 AIM, which is the vehicle currently in War Thunder, as having the upgrade. Attempting to attribute those hulls to a variant not listed in the report is baseless.
That manual is from 2001. It is outdated and refers to the baseline fleet before the M1A1 AIM and M1A2 SEP programs were fully realized.
You are trying to use a 25-year-old medical pamphlet to disprove a 2006 Congressional Budget Office report and a 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission license.
The NRC license explicitly authorizes the Army to possess and store tank hulls containing Depleted Uranium. The Army does not apply for federal nuclear licenses for components that do not exist. The legal possession documents override an old field manual.
Saying “you are debunked” is not a counter-argument.
You have yet to address the specific document I posted. The CBO report (Table A-1) explicitly lists the IPM1 as “Improved Composite” and the M1A1 AIM as “Heavy Armor added to hull.”
If the hull armor is identical as you claim, why did the Congressional Budget Office list two different armor types for those variants in the same table? Stop dodging and answer the question.
You just posted a document marked Distribution Restriction B. That explicitly limits distribution to U.S. Government Agencies Only.
This is a violation of the forum Military Restrictions policy. Finding a file on a third-party website does not constitute declassification.
Procedural issues aside, the manual is dated December 20, 2001. It is outdated. You are using a restricted text that predates the M1A1 AIM fleet to argue against a 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission license. The NRC license confirms the Army currently possesses DU hulls. That is the controlling legal authority.
I find it funny that everyone has agreed that Heavy Armor added to the turret means DU but the EXACT SAME TERM doesnt apply to the hull in the same document. Its f****** Hilarious to me. Read through this entire thing and the only argument is 5 hulls but later redacted because of constantly changing inventory etc etc etc. I dont think 5 hulls with DU is constantly changing when they arent even a service vehicle. But hey what do i know. Reguardless The Turrets have DU and have since 91. So my question is why Would it specifically state “Heavy Armor added to hull and turret” when if its a Refit or modernization of Previous A1s (which didnt have an improvement over the IPM1) If there wasnt a direct change in material or thickness? If it was just the turret affected why would they also list the hull? (Just checked in game. All the Abrams except the M1 at 10.7 have the exact same armor) So does this not still specifically show the A2, A2 SEP, AIM, and SEP v2 should receive an armor increase? Arguing DU in the Hull aside. This clearly states that 85 IPM1 and A1 have different Armor compared to the A2, SEP, and AIM. Also are were going to ignore the Other catagory stating Active NBC Protective system (Nuclear biological Chemical) on the A1 thus meaning every model after 85 also had it?
You highlighted the fatal flaw in their logic. They admit Heavy Armor in the turret means DU, but claim the exact same phrase in the hull column means generic composite. It is a linguistic double standard invented to save the current in-game model.
The CBO report is clear. The IPM1 is listed as Improved Composite. The M1A1 AIM is listed as Heavy Armor added to hull. If the hull armor was identical to the IPM1, the CBO would have used the same terminology. They didn’t. They utilized the specific technical designation for the radioactive package defined in the Federal Register.
As for the license, you are correct. You do not switch a federal possession license to As Needed for five static prototypes. You switch it because you have an operational fleet rotating through depots. The 2012 NRC review confirmed the inventory changes frequently. Static prototypes do not change frequently. The regulatory trail is consistent with a full fleet upgrade.
At the end of the day even if we cant argue the fact that DU very well COULD be in the Hull of Abrams Post 91 we can clearly argue that Every abrams that isnt specifically the IPM1 and A1 Should get an armor buff to atleast show that there was a increase if the Protection of Abrams. It also clearly states that A2 and A2 Sep use 2nd and 3rd generation DU armor meaning there had to be a gen 1 correct? So why go from ICA (improved Composite Armor) to Heavy Armor “System” to then go 2nd and 3rd Gen DU armor? Where was gen 1? Oh right Gen 1 was the “5” hulls sitting at a school.
