This i personally 100% agree on, improvements were made for sure. In what way is the question.
1 Like
armor thickness
better array
better material
pretty sure thats the 3 that would LOGICALLY make sense
if there is actually zero available documentation that is not classified then gaijin MUST make an educate guess
atleast a 10% increase between M1 and M1A1 and 10% increase in M1A1 and M1A2
with this figure it would land around 540mm at SEP v2, which would resist 3bm46
this has to go the same for leopard also, cuz damn 400mm is just sad
1 Like
Even if it was just layout changes, more NERA, or even material changes, it shouldn’t be that hard to determine a rough armor increase.
Composite composition. Chobham had multiple versions and it is only right to assume the Americans themselves were making amendments to issues raised on composite. However to know the exact composition… nvm impossible. Gaijin also bases composite completely off absolutely nothing. The armour values just got to be consistent with IRL, but in which way doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t. at all.
Exactly.
The licence only list the hulls again after 2016, which is the point at which the SEPv3 is about to start production.
Then show me that they have given out a licence for the hulls before 2016.
After 2016. just before SEPv3 enters production and the others are already finished.
It does, it very much does.
You are seriously arguing that the Congressional Budget Office, the primary auditing agency of the United States Government, used a random website to lie to Congress about a multi-million dollar tank upgrade program?
That is absurd. The CBO audits the budget. They have access to the classified procurement contracts and the invoices. They know exactly what the Army paid for. When they report that the M1A1 AIM program included Heavy Armor added to hull and turret, that is a financial fact. It means the Army paid for that specific upgrade.
If you claim the CBO got the table wrong because of one citation in the bibliography, you are accusing the government of massive budget fraud. You are saying they paid for Heavy Armor upgrades that were never installed.
Also, regarding the license being worldwide. The NRC is a US civilian regulatory agency. They regulate DoD Installations. They do not have jurisdiction over combat operations in a foreign war zone.
The US Army does not ask a civilian agency in Maryland for permission to deploy tanks to Iraq. The license covers the tanks when they are at US bases or Depots. When they are in a combat zone, they operate under different authorities. So yes, the domestic possession numbers would be low in 2006 because the fleet was busy fighting a war.
I will take the word of the Federal Register definition, the CBO budget audit, and the actual Amended NRC License over your theory that the Army copy-pasted a line in an application letter and therefore the tanks do not exist. The physical reality of the paid-for armor overrides a paperwork discrepancy that the NRC explicitly fixed by removing the limit.
1 Like
The US military budget doesn’t exactly hold the best or even a good track record though. NVM they could be interpreted otherwise.
1 Like
You agreed that the hull is the non-radioactive nail in the box, but you are missing the fatal flaw in that logic.
The NRC lists Hulls as an Authorized Use for Depleted Uranium.
If the hull was the non-radioactive nail, the NRC would not list it. They do not license the non-radioactive parts of a package. They only license the specific components that contain the material.
By listing Hulls in Item 9, the NRC confirms that the Hull itself contains the DU. It is not just a passive part of a larger package. It is the radioactive component.
You asked me to show you a license for hulls before 2016.
We already established that Amendment 9 in 2006 removed the 5-hull limit and authorized DU possession As Needed . That covers hulls. The license never stopped covering hulls. It went from a specific limit of 5 to an As Needed authorization.
But more importantly, you are still dodging the CBO Report from 2006.
The CBO Audit confirms that the M1A1 AIM had Heavy Armor added to the hull.
We have established via the Federal Register that Heavy Armor is the radioactive DU package.
We have established via the NRC License that DU Hulls exist.
Unless you can prove that the Army used the term Heavy Armor to mean DU in the Hull in 2017, but used the exact same term to mean Steel in the Hull in 2006, your argument collapses. You are assuming the definition changed without any evidence. I am relying on the consistent federal definition.
1 Like
That is a weak cop-out. There is a huge difference between the Pentagon failing an audit because of lost receipts and the Congressional Budget Office inventing a specific technical upgrade that doesn’t exist.
The CBO is an independent agency of Congress, not the military. Their entire job is to check the books. If they listed Heavy Armor added to hull and turret, it is because they saw the procurement contract for it.
You are dismissing a primary federal source just because you don’t like what it says. Saying it could be interpreted otherwise without explaining how is just admitting you have no actual counter-argument.
1 Like
To add to this, it is confirmed that the HAP only has DU in the turret and not the hull for at least the beginning stages of it’s implementation into mass deployment:
( https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf )
At this point you sound like a broken record, you keep repeating the same points over and over as if that is going to change how they can be read and interpreted.
I have answered this multiple times, there is no dodging.
Your own CBO source claims that it changed generations for the Heavy Armor Package, it’s content has changed without it changing name according to your own source.
They really lost a loaaaad of receipts I guess.
It did. They applied some new composite to the hull. Nothing wrong with me interpreting it that way. I don’t see anything grammatically wrong with that interpretation at least.
All of which has been plainly listed in front of you. Why would the army then request specifically for 5 tanks when in reality it is couple thousand of them. What difference does it make.
I sound like a broken record because I keep quoting the document text and you keep replying with “nuh-uh, that is conjecture.”
You are arguing that because the armor changed generations, the definition of Heavy Armor might have changed to exclude nature of the material. That fails because of the radiation finding.
Look at the Federal Register again. It explicitly states that the Heavy Armor System emits radiation. Not just the turret part. The System itself.
If the M1A1 AIM has “Heavy Armor added to the hull” (CBO Report), and “Heavy Armor” is defined by the Army as the system that emits radiation (Federal Register), then the hull armor emits radiation.
You are trying to use the “Generational Change” to argue that maybe they switched back to non-radioactive armor for the hull in 2006. But if that were true, they wouldn’t need a nuclear license for the hull. And yet, the license lists the hull as a DU component.
Connect the three dots
Federal Register: Heavy Armor System = Radioactive/DU.
CBO Report: Heavy Armor is in the Hull.
NRC License: The Hull is a DU Component.
You can’t break that chain by saying “maybe the generation changed.” The license for the hull proves the material remained radioactive.
You claim there is nothing wrong with your interpretation, but there is. You are trying to redefine a term that the US Government already legally defined. The Federal Register explicitly states that the Heavy Armor System is the DU package. You cannot just interpret a defined legal term to mean “some new composite” because it suits your argument.
As for your question on why they requested 5 tanks: Read the text in the image again. It explicitly says “The 5 tanks with DU hulls are located at Army Schools.”
That line answers your own question. They requested 5 because that specific license was for the Schoolhouse buildings. NRC licenses are site-specific.
The thousands of M1A1 AIMs and M1A2 SEPs you are asking about were deployed in combat units or overseas. You do not list combat tanks in Iraq on a possession license for a school building in the US.
Using a license for a specific training school to claim the entire combat fleet didn’t exist is a massive logic failure. The CBO audited the procurement of the fleet. The NRC licensed the safety of the school. They are two different numbers because they are measuring two different things.
1 Like
i think the argument here is that the NRC license implies that there where only 5 DU hulls pre 2016
Package does not specifically state hull. As long as the package includes DU, which it did, in the turret, then yes it is the ‘DU package’.
No they are not. The source clearly stated:
WORLD WIDE.
You are ignoring the limitations written directly in the license notes and the authorized use section.
First, look at Item 9 of the NRC License again. It defines the Authorized Use of the material.
It explicitly states: For use of DU material utilized as Armor in tank turrets/hulls.
It does not say Heavy Armor Package. It says DU material.
It explicitly lists the Hull as a location where the DU material is utilized.
If the hull armor was just the non-radioactive part of the package, as you claim, Item 9 would be illegal. The NRC authorized the specific use of DU material inside the hull. That destroys your theory that the package name covers a non-DU hull.
Second, regarding the Worldwide header.
That is the address of the licensee, not a census of the equipment.
Read the specific note about the 5 tanks again. It says: The 5 tanks with DU hulls are located at Army Schools.
That is a descriptive constraint for that specific line item. It ties those 5 tanks to the Schools.
If you interpret that as the global total for the entire US military, then you have to explain the CBO Report.
The CBO audited the M1A1 AIM program, which produced hundreds of tanks. The CBO stated those tanks had Heavy Armor added to the hull.
So you have two choices:
-
The CBO lied about hundreds of tanks having the armor.
-
The 5 tanks note in the license referred specifically to the training assets at the schools, and the deployed combat fleet operated under the general worldwide authority or war powers.
Logic dictates that the CBO audit of the deployed fleet is the accurate count of production, not a specific training note in a schoolhouse license.
Yes, there are 5 tanks that has DU hull. Which is in the army school, which have been included in the application.
Yes they are at army school. But the application and the NRC licence is for world wide.
If they didn’t use that website then why did they state that they did right underneath the table?
Also answer me this: if the main improvement of the M1A1 AIM was DU armour in the hull, and the M1A1 AIM entered service in 2000, why did the Army say in 2006 that they only possess 5 tanks with DU hulls?
The licence states multiple times that it is to cover tanks worldwide. Why would the Army put that if they were only interested in the licence covering tanks on US soil? But sure let’s assume that’s the case.
The licence was renewed in 2006 to cover a 10-year period and indeed was not amended or renewed again until 2016.
Do you seriously think the Army would fill out a form to renew their licence in 2006, under the assumption that not a single one of the DU tank hulls they had supposedly deployed overseas would return to the US at any point in the next 10 years, bringing the total number in the US to more than 5?
1 Like
You are forcing a contradiction to make your theory work.
If the license covers the entire planet and literally means only 5 tanks exist, then the CBO Report is a lie.
The M1A1 AIM program was a fleet-wide refurbishment of hundreds of tanks. The CBO Audit in 2006 confirms that those tanks had Heavy Armor added to the hull.
You cannot have hundreds of AIM tanks with hull armor in existence while simultaneously claiming only 5 tanks exist worldwide.
The only way both documents are true is if the NRC license applies to the specific non-deployed assets at the schools, while the operational fleet deployed in Iraq falls under different authority.
You are choosing to believe a constraint on a schoolhouse license overrides a Congressional Audit of a mass-production program.
Yes, because it wasn’t a schoolhouse one. AS CLEARLY STATED BY THE DOCUMENT! Also AIM has been in service long before 2006, so the army illegally produced, trained with and deployed a tank for 6 years?