Or a mistake, people make mistakes, it happens. And surprisingly often mistakes make it into published documents.
You are misrepresenting it like that document is an audit of the M1A1 AIM programme. The M1A1 AIM is literally mentioned twice in that entire 100+ page document, once in that table, and once in a graph showing how many tanks the US has.
General Dynamics builds the tanks under their own manufacturing license, not the Army possession license. The Army deploys them under Title 10 war authorities. The NRC license is just for domestic storage at specific bases like TACOM.
You are confusing a site storage permit with the authority to build and wage war.
If we have 5 DU hulls, no matter where they are, that’s been plenty of evidence to implement for other vehicles
The NRC licence is for possession, deployment and storage.
We can get the HA version. Sure no one has any objection for that. But for other tanks to receive the same treatment is ahistorical.
It’s ahistorical because gaijin cant have access to the information, we had the guy who did the interview that worked on them and has extensive knowledge, get shot down in his argument because gaijin can’t take word of mouth.
You are dismissing a primary federal document as a mistake just because it disproves your theory. That is not research, that is cherry-picking.
The CBO report analyzes the capabilities of the current heavy fleet to compare it against the Future Combat System. The data in that table is the foundation of their cost-benefit analysis. If that data was wrong, the entire report to Congress would be invalid. The CBO does not publish random typos regarding the armor composition of the primary battle tank of the United States.
You are also contradicting yourself regarding the license.
You admitted earlier that the NRC removed the 5-hull limit in the final 2006 license (Amendment 9).
If the Army only had 5 tanks and never planned to have more, why did the NRC remove the limit?
The fact that the regulatory body stepped in and removed the specific limit proves that the Army’s application (which was likely copy-pasted from the year 2000) was outdated.
The License is the law. The Application is just paperwork.
The Law (Amendment 9) authorized As Needed possession of DU Hulls in 2006.
The Budget (CBO) confirms the Army paid for Heavy Armor in the Hull in 2006.
You are choosing to believe complete operational non-existence based on a clerical error in an application form, while ignoring the signed legal license and the federal budget audit that contradict it. The physical reality of the upgrades paid for by the AIM program overrides a paperwork discrepancy that was fixed 20 years ago.
You are making up laws. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a domestic civilian agency. They regulate safety within US borders. They do not license the US Army to deploy weapons into a foreign war zone.
The Army does not ask a civilian bureaucrat in Maryland for permission to invade Iraq. The license covers domestic storage.
And calling it ahistorical is ridiculous. The M1A1 AIM program wasn’t 5 prototypes. It was a mass refurbishment of hundreds of tanks. The CBO audit confirms the fleet received Heavy Armor in the hull. You are claiming the standard paid-for configuration of the entire AIM fleet is fake because of a storage permit for a school.
Look, i want to be completely clear here so that there are no misunderstandings:
I’m NOT saying that your explanations are impossible. What i am saying is that they are not the SOLE explanation that covers all the possible logic and sources provided. If the sources provided can be read in more than one way then it is too inconclusive to be used as a source to prove anything definitively.
Box of nails argument covers this logic as well.
Faulty logic. I can take the radioactive nail and put it in one spot and the non-radioactive nail in another. Both cases can hold true.
No? i have not said this anywhere. I have said that there were NO hulls (other than the 5 prototypes) with DU before 2016. There would be no need to “switch back” if there were none from the start.
The 5 prototypes covers this basis and argument.
There are no dots to connect. You have made assumptions that your logical conclusions are the only viable ones. There are other viable explanations that cover all the bases just as well. Yours is not the only logical conclusion, it is just one of them.
So to break your logic here:
Federal Register: Heavy Armor System = Radioactive/DU In turret.
CBO Report: Heavy Armor is in the Hull but only the turret contains the DU.
NRC License: The Hull of 5 prototypes is a DU Component.
I really hope that you see that this explanation above explains every source you have just as well as your explanation (if not even some parts even better).
Again, i’m not saying your conclusion is impossible. I’m saying it’s not the only logical one.
They even mention in the 5 hull source that the tank manuals for crew only warn abut DU in the turrets:
( https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf )
Nono, that you have interpreted to be defined as. Nowhere have they EXPLICITLY defined it to mean DU in the hulls. Nowhere is it defined that ALL parts of the package are the same.
“You cannot just interpret a term to mean “all parts must be DU” because it fits your argument”
Do you see how that argument works just as well both ways?
This licence is world wide:
Those prototypes just happen to be located at those schools.
This is covered by the 5 prototypes.
No it wouldn’t. it is present in the 5 prototypes. They are in no way forced to have DU in all the hulls of all tanks just because they are allowed to.
It doesn’t. It covers the 5 prototypes. The rest of the tanks can have non-DU in the hulls and everything you have presented as sources would still logically track.
Incorrect. It states “adress where licenced material will be used or possessed” .
It doesn’t.
Not even the 5 hulls are restrained to be in those schools.
Covered by the option of only the turret being DU.
It isn’t. Your working on the assumption that the HAP = DU in hull which is not the only logical conclusion you can draw.
You can if the others only have DU in the turrets.
Nope, it covers both easily. I recommend actually reading the whole thing and not just some small parts.
The primary federal document doesn’t explicitly state that DU is present in the hulls. It is not the only way to read that document and not the only logical conclusion.
It still holds true with the assumption that DU is only in the turret. There are no lies or faults involved if the DU is only in the turret.
Speculation and conjecture.
This is also covered if they only needed 5.
Does not automatically mean DU in the hull.
There are no logical leaps of document faults if DU is only in the turrets of the operational fleet and in the hulls of the 5 prototypes. All logic still connects.
No I am claiming 1. AIMs never received any armour upgrades. 2. HAs did, but no other document other than this mentioned anything to do with DU hulls, which it did not directly either. 3. The NRC licence was specifically stated as ‘possess, operate’ storage in fact doesn’t need it.
We have established 2 things.
Your entire argument hinges on the unproven assumption that the Army used the specific technical term Heavy Armor to describe a non-DU composite hull for the M1A1 AIM fleet, while simultaneously using that exact same term to describe the DU package in the Federal Register.
That is the definition of conjecture. You are inventing a secret, second definition of Heavy Armor just to avoid the conclusion.
We can prove this is false by looking at the CBO table again.
The CBO lists the IPM1 armor as Improved composite armor.
The CBO lists the M1A1 AIM armor as Heavy armor added to hull.
If the AIM hull was just non-DU composite (like your theory suggests), the CBO would have labeled it “Improved Composite” or “Special Armor,” just like they did for the IPM1. The fact that they switched to the specific term Heavy Armor proves the material changed to the DU standard.
Regarding the license:
You claim the “5 prototypes” explanation covers everything. It doesn’t.
NRC License SUB-1536 was amended in 2016 to verify authorized use for “Tank Turrets and Hulls.”
If DU hulls were only an abandoned experiment on 5 old tanks from the 1990s, why did the NRC actively reiterate the authorization for Hulls in a current license amendment 20 years later?
You don’t maintain a live federal license for unlimited production of a feature that you abandoned two decades ago. The license remains active and unlimited because the feature is active and unlimited.
You are performing mental gymnastics to argue that “Heavy Armor in Hull” means “Non-Heavy Armor in Hull” just to protect the “5 Tank” myth. The Name is Heavy Armor. The Material is DU. The Location is Hull. Logic dictates the conclusion.
Hell Gaijin could even fudge some numbers such as like 50-100mm of KE effective thickness increase from the M1A1 onwards per model of tank. If you can’t get concrete numbers just make educated guesses based on weight increases.
I mean it’s hard to say given even the base M1 is included, but it is safe to say HA did, as the aforementioned congress document stated, and so did the HA. Should be up to 500mm now. But this is completely up to Gaijin cause we don’t know. They can give protection values of as low as 0.25KE based on nothing so I guess we’ll have to give it time.
We likely will never see an increase until the SEP v3 because Gaijin has pretty much already closed the hull armor debate.
Yeah. I quite like the ABRAMS gameplay though anyway, one of the most balanced tanks RN. A bit of everything.
That is not a nail in the coffin until you post the date and title of that text.
That text looks exactly like the descriptions from the Environmental Assessments in the early 1990s, before the M1A1 AIM program or the SEP upgrades even existed.
If that document is from 1996 or earlier, of course it says the hull has no DU. The DU hull upgrades happen later. You are using a document that predates the M1A1 AIM program to argue against the CBO report that audited the M1A1 AIM program in 2006.
You also claimed that AIMs never received any armor upgrades. The Congressional Budget Office explicit stated: Heavy armor added to hull and turret.
You are simply denying a federal audit because it ruins your theory.
And regarding your claim about storage. You are wrong. NRC License SUB-1536 is a Materials License for Possession and Use. You legally cannot store Depleted Uranium without a possession license. Saying storage doesn’t need a license is factually incorrect.
lol youre the same guy that spammed the bug tracker, got shut down, spammed reddit, got shut down and now have started spamming the forums with the same debunked crap
edit: oops quoted wrong post
Yes, I was banned from the bug tracker for reposting the report too quickly. I admit that was a mistake on my part regarding the procedure.
However, Smin1080p explicitly told me that the bug tracker is not the place for discussions and that I should take this topic to the forums if I wanted to discuss the outcome properly.
So I am doing exactly what the Community Manager instructed me to do. I am here having the discussion on the correct platform.
Attacking my history doesn’t verify your claim that the sources are debunked. If the Federal Register and NRC license were actually debunked, you would be posting the proof right now instead of digging up my bug report history. Focus on the documents, and not the messenger.
theres enough evidence in the reddit thread debunking every single claim im not going to copy paste it here to preach to someone who refuses to read evidence contrary to his beliefs
