Going round and round about the same thing. Guys clearly not going to concede that and neither are you. So lets just move on and look specifically that a 1988 Assessment States Heavy Armor System as being Radioactive. Further statements of Heavy Armor in the Hull and Turret of the AIM Refit/Rebuild program states in both Hull and Turret. So why would a report from 1988 State the Heavy Armor is Radioactive to then have a later Document State “Heavy Armor in Turret and Hull” When The Hull never got DU atleast with the AIM Refit/Rebuild? If the Heavy Armor System was just DU Turret On the Same A1 hull it would just state Heavy Armor System applied instead of Specifically Listing both Hull and Turret? Its from 1988 which Post Dates A1 and Predates A2 and AIM So if the Heavy Armor System implies the addition of DU to the Turret since we already agree the IP and A1 have the same hull would that not also mean the Heavy Armor System refers to the DU Usage?
That is the exact logical consistency the opposition is ignoring.
The term Heavy Armor System was defined in 1988 and 1998 as the radioactive package. When the CBO used that specific term for the AIM hull in 2006, they were referencing that specific material.
If the hull was unchanged from the IPM1, they would have just written Improved Composite Armor like they did for the previous column.
Yes, but that does not automatically mean that both WILL change. THAT is the conjecture part.
Yes, it does not use the word “hull” . you are putting that word in there, that word does not need to be included for it to still be true. Conjecture.
You are adding “hull”.
correct.
It does not say that hull count changes. It says the number of M1 tanks changes.
It does not say the turret count stays the same. It says the count is classified.
No, if turrets change the tank count change.
BOTH our conjectures work. THAT is the issue. there is no definitive statement. there is nothing that proves that hulls got DU.
Blockquote
No, faulty logic.
Yes, but that does not automatically mean that it is only turrets. Both could change from how the document is written but not explicitly defined.
Maybe, reach out to the CBO as P51 mentioned for clarification instead.
That’s the entire issue, both our logical conclusions are conjecture and both conclusions logically work and semantically work. There is no definitive proof provided.
The documentation linked by neatspartan112 Shows an exemption on page 14 which refers to the an exemption argued on pages 2 through 12. With reading the usage the license specifically calling out those 5 hulls where because they were not production vehicles but were infact experimental testing vehicles that did not fall under the exemption. Meaning the production vehicles did not need to be claimed under the license since the DU was being used in a way that was exempt from needing the license in the first place.
It also states that it is only for storage excluding General dynamics, its subcontractors and temporary job sites. Meaning they DU could be removed and storage at any of General Dynamics depots or otherwise and not need to be listed on the license as with temporary job sites could loosely be construed as combat deployments.
Which was denied:
Page 9 and 10. It was approved by NMSS
which is precisely why the main bug report got denied because it was deemed cross source guessing.
Lets be real, while evidence exists to claim DU in 5 hulls, we just dont have concrete proof this transferred to every tank in the fleet and in future production variants.
And like I mentioned prior if such a report got passed I dont think senzawa realises that gaijin WILL use the information to guestimate a nerf on the older variants due to generational differences in the DU armour protection values because lets be real if HA = Gen 1 DU then gaijin will not concede the fact Gen 1/Gen2/Gen 3 all have identical protection levels.
So he could get the hull buffed but the turrets nerfed as a byproduct.
As been stated long before in this thread the turret losing abit of protection is not an issue. The hull gaining protection is a good thing meaning it cant be braindead clicked by almost every dart in the game above 10.7.
if you think the turret losing protection is a non issue say that when DM53 starts lol penning the commander side of the turret and killing the tank in one go or M829A2 etc thanks to mixed MM lobbies etc.
Your ignoring the possibility that it would all depend on how much gaijin reduced the values by, even if they said 50mm reduced protection from gen 3 down to gen 2 and then another 50mm down from gen 2 to gen 1 means you would lose nearly 100mm of protection on the turret cheeks.
If you think having a stronger hull out weighs being one shot by at least 2 top tier rounds in hull down positions then you clearly dont understand balance.
Dont forget you also wouldnt just be losing KE values too, you would lose CE values and a lot of ATGMs just barely get stopped on these cheeks and now depending on gaijins interpretation they could end being killable which reduces the effectiveness of USA lineups in an already abysmal state that they are.
So honestly if thats what you want then go right ahead, but if it results in 2 maybe 3 tanks losing enough protection then you will have selectively F’d USA all for a hull upgrade that is irrelevant in 80% of engagements
Yes, in February 1997, this was then forwarded to the NRC that in May 1997 denied it. The pages are not in chronological order, you have to look at the dates as well.
Ah i did not see that the dates were infact out of order. My Apologies.
Easy mistake to make, i’ve done it myself x) especially with these older documents with dates written all over the place …
I only skimmed this but yeah I can agree with this, although I do think judging the armor based off whether or not the front got bigger is kind of a weak point, since they could have always just replaced the armor arrays with better ones that protect more while taking up less space or just added du into the hull to replace some of the arrays. But this is a good case.
tldr:
1 document proving no hull DU
a few documents proving 5 hulls out of ~10000 mightve been tested with DU
0 documents proving M1A2/M1A1HC has it
why are these topics still being spammed? hull DU is ahistorical and even artificial buff to abrams wont magically increase american winrates cos the players still suck lmao
The “1 document” you are referring to is the restricted medical pamphlet from 2001 posted above. It is outdated and predates the mass fielding of the M1A1 AIM. It does not disprove the 2006 Congressional Budget Office report or the 2016 NRC license.
We have the federal budget confirming the purchase and the NRC license confirming the possession. Those are the documents proving it.
And stop with the toxic insults. Player skill has nothing to do with the fact that the game is modeling the vehicle incorrectly based on federal records. Keep the discussion on the evidence.
Bascially how vehicles are added and tweaked in warthunder:
For Russia - If it exists in real life, we add it to make the vehicle competitive
For NATO - It can’t be add it unless declassified manual is provided to prove it exists (which is illegal to share) or it won’t add it because of ‘game balance’ reasons
none of the 2006 reports prove hull DU being deployed beyond 5 test hulls. this has been made clear to you in countless replies both on reddit and in this thread. its your choice to ignore the facts but good luck ever getting your ahistorical hull buff