So why not just add the “training hulls”? It’s not like Gaijin hasn’t modeled specific unique configurations, or arbitrarily conflated features to reach some performance target.
Just look at the M60-120S, where it has the orthogonal drivetrain, and Thermals / optics combination. Between the prototype and proposed configuration which did not exist.
Or the F-4E which is an “impossible” Maverick Equipt, unspecified “Non-DMAS block”, F-4E, circa '72.
We’re talking about whether any M1 model has DU in the hull, when what we should be looking at is what improvements the hull armor of the different M1s received, regardless of whether it’s DU or not, since it seems that either the M1 has DU in the hull, or the 2016 M1 has the same armor as the 1980 M1.
Currently in Game Every version of the Abrams that is not the M1 Abrams (10.7) M1 KVT (10.7) and 120S (Patton Abrams Retrofit) Have the exact same armor. Which according to the documents that have been argued the M1A1 AIM Has a different Hull Armor Package and Turret Package Compared to the M1A1 that it was Zero hour rebuilding. So the question is How different and to what degree was it changed? The further argument is that The manuals and otherwise that have also been discussed State “Heavy Armor System is radiactive” So that would mean that by Definition of the Army The Heavy Armor System is refering to the use of DU as part of the Composition of the Package. The thing that is being constantly pointed to is that because of the term SYSTEM its meaning DU Turret Composite hull which is clearly not the case since the Report specifically mentions “Heavy Armor added to turret and hull.” Why would the “Heavy Armor System” if its DU Turret Composite Hull be added to both the Hull and Turret? Thats where people are missing the point. Theres this wonderful thing called “TOP SECRET” That would have had certain documents destroyed or otherwise to protect them at the time. So why have a Report State that Heavy Armor was added to the Hull and turret as apart of the budget report when clearly It was just the “Heavy Armor System” Applied to the Zero hour Rebuild of the A1 tanks?
The point also being that the US military wouldn’t have “Training hulls” if they weren’t employing the exact same tech in the field.
Was also being used to test exposure to the crews and otherwise. But yes generally the military doesnt train with something that isnt later being fielded in mass. Try telling that to those who think otherwise. Theres a reason theres military trials for contracts and acquisition for new equipment. Same goes with experimental equipment being developed by already contracted Companies and providers of equipment. Its all tested and usually trained on before it goes into the field thus if it was in 5 “training” Hulls at a Military school why would they abandon the tech if it provided improvments in the survivability of the crew inside the vehicle? Clearly it was not abandoned as its clearly used in the Turret Package so why wouldnt they also use it in the Hull package aswell. Just because one license clearly states “5 Hulls” Does not mean that there was not more being produced and thus needing the license verbage to be changed? As it was changed and the 5 hull limit was removed and later explained it was removed due to “Tanks and Tank Parts constantly changing” How does ONLY 5 HULLS EXSIST WITH DU CONSTANTLY CHANGE?! If it was still exactly ONLY 5 Hulls why change the Verbage if the Usage of how many was a security risk? You change or remove the verbage so that way it is unknown how many you actually have. If it was known that only 5 was the number and thats all it ever was you would not change or remove the wording on a license unless you needed more hulls.
If you take a tank with no DU in it, then you add DU to the turret, that means the number of tanks with DU in them has changed. you don’t have to add DU to the hull for that to be true.
While it would make sense for them to start adding DU to the hull after that point there is no definitive proof that they actually did. So as long as there is no document clearly stating that there is in fact DU in the hull then everything else will be guesses and cross referencing which Gaijin doesn’t accept as acceptable proof.
Again im going to outline this for you.
5 “Training” hulls
Unlimited Turrets
How does exactly 5 Hulls with DU constantly change if you are not fitting MORE hulls with DU?
There is exactly ZERO reason to remove the line specifying exactly 5 hulls from the license and further list Hulls and Turrets “As Needed” If you are infact not using DU in more than the EXACT 5 Hulls that Never seen service or deployment as they were testing and training examples.
I suggest you copy paste to a bug report and wait 3 years for it to be either fixed or ignored. Actually your not UK so they will get to it in 1 year.
They have not stated that the 5 hulls constantly change. Nowhere is that written.
They previously had a limit in the amount of DU they could poses, the amount of turrets was unlimited and it was limited for the 5 hulls. The limit removed was for the kg amount of DU they were allowed to have, and what parts they were allowed to have it in. Since they were also required to report how much DU they had AND in what state that DU was in they would have had to send in a new update for every turret they put DU in, every time. The limit removed isn’t only for the hulls, the amount of DU and the hulls and the turrets are lumped together in one licence, they removed the limit for the entire licence. So there are no longer any limit to the amount of DU they can posses and no longer any limit on how many turrets or hulls they can have it in.
The reason for them doing that was stated as “for security reasons and that the number of tanks and parts with DU in them constantly change”. No where is it stated that the number of DU hulls is planned to change, nowhere is it stated that more hulls got DU. Changing DU in the turret alone will change that tank from non-DU to a DU one so the number of tanks with du in them has changed. You can GUESS that adding it to more hulls is what they did, but it isn’t explicitly stated anywhere.
As long as there is no explicit statement then Gaijin wont accept the report.
This has been an ongoing argument for longer than that lol. It doesnt matter what nation it is if its not USSR or China if it doesnt have 600 chapters of explicit direct documentation it doesnt exsist or was never used.
He can’t at the moment:
Oof. i think a lot of players that bug report USSR or Chinese vehicles would like to contest that statement.
Then wheres the documentation for 99% of the experiment crap thats been given to USSR and China that was never used or otherwise? Oh right USSR and China are Exempt from the rules they set in place for every other Nation in the game.
Or its passed as a suggestion and shoved deep into the cracks and forgotten about. Challenger 2s have bug reports with broken bugs that are like 2-3 years old. Not even talking about armour or features, actual bugs.
China/Russia?? 7 days.
I dont know if your trying to argue all of this for the point of thinking you are correct about how the Governemnt generally handles secret or experimental stuff at the time or if your just trying to debate a totally separate wild interpretation that has zero stance in reality of how the Military generally does things in a very intentional way for a reason.
Regardless you are neither correct or incorrect as 5 Training hulls would not be a security risk if they were never fielded or meant to be used in the active fleet therefore explicitly removing the limitation on how many Hulls are DU containers would only mean that the usage of DU was going beyond the 5 Hull limit previously licensed. You do not have something like that removed for security reasons if you are not deploying it in more than the previously listed amount. The Military only licenses the amount it thinks it would ever need. Turrets are usually made in excess because they are an easily changable part of the Tank itself. The hulls however are not made in excess beyond what is specifically ordered meaning if you only ordered 5 DU hulls you do not need to explicitly state that the amount of hulls in possesion is constantly changing. Just because the Turret has DU does not mean the Hull is a radioactive container so why license “as needed” Turrets and hulls if your not in possession of more than the 5 “Training” Hulls? If you apply even just a small amount of Critical Logical thinking Keeping that kind of number classified for security reasons explicitly means you do not want outside sources to know exactly how many you have or are actively producing meaning more than those 5 training hulls exsist.
And again How does the “Heavy Armor System” being the radiactive bit of the armor get applied to both the turret and the hull of a tank if infact the only part of that “System” that is radio active is the package in the turret and not the hull? Thats where your argument is invalid and lacks the use of critical thinking. How can something be called one specific term that then gets applied to both one and the other but only one has the portion actually applied? Thats where your entire argument falls apart.
Neither. I’m putting fourth a logical argument that semantically and logically tracks with the sources same as other arguments i’ve seen put fourth in this thread.
That’s the biggest issue, if a source can be read in more than one way then it is inconclusive and doesn’t definitively prove anything. This goes for all forms of research and all forms of science. If there is more than one explanation for something then you aren’t done and can’t draw any final conclusions.
Your issue here with this entire paragraph is that the 5 hulls were not the only part of the licence and they were not on a separate line either. They changed the licence and the line as a whole, not just the 5 hulls. You therefore cannot draw any definitive conclusions on what they did after that. You can make more or less reasonable guesses and assumptions, but they are just that, guesses and assumptions. That’s not something that stands in any research and cannot be used for reporting.
This is how that could be explained:
Think of the word “System” as a parts kit with several parts.
If i buy a “Terrain Upgrade Kit” for my bicycle and that adds metal suspension to the frame and new rubber tires for the wheel rims then that same kit is comprised of two different materials.
Is that the only explanation? No. Is it the best one? Probably not. Is it entirely possible? Yes.
If something has more than one logically and semantically sound explanation then you do not have definitive proof.
Okay lets look at this more simply in terms of the HAS.
I offer paint services Paint for Door and Hood ordered.
I bill for Paint on door and hood.
I paint door
I paint hood
Bill is correct and accurate yes?
I bill Paint on door and hood
I paint Hood
I wax door
Bill is incorrect and inaccurate yes?
So how can Something applied as a “system” or “package” be applied to both hull and turret when you can simply state “Heavy Armor System Added”? You do not DIRECTLY specify added to both if only one portion is radioactive.
To further this the HAS was originally talking about the DU in the turret so that itself was the system was the Turret Armor Upgrade. Later the hulls were tested with the 5. That means Heavy Armor System is explicitly refering to the DU in the Early Turret testing and was latter tested on the Hull and thus “Heavy Armor added to hull and turret” Means DU was added to both.
You bill for Paint on door and hood.
You paint door red.
You paint hood blue.
Bill is correct and accurate.
Two different colors used.
See my bike analogy above, “Terrain Upgrade Kit” added to bike. Are both the tires and suspension metal? No.
I have not seen this, could you highlight and screenshot the exact parts of the documents that says that the HAS adds DU to the hull?
Explicitly States Heavy Armor system has been in use since 1988.
Document Stating Abrams Heavy Armor Installed in the Turret
The combination of all the above is explicitly stating the Heavy Armor System Is the DU Turret package in 1988. Meaning Later in 2000 When the term Heavy Armor is added to the hull and turret of the AIM is stating the DU armor is in use in the hull Aswell. As in 88 the 5 Hulls at the school were being actively tested at the time and they were outlining the Heavy Armor system meaining the Turret ORIGINALLY.
This part here is where you are making assumptions. It’s a very reasonable assumption. but it is not the only conclusion that can be drawn.
The CBO report also came out in 2006 and states that those kits were already added to the A1 AIM since the year 2000. 6 years before the limit was removed from the NRC license in 2006.
