If you aren’t going to copy-paste the evidence because you claim it exists elsewhere, that just means you can’t actually produce it.
I am doing exactly what the Community Manager told me to do. I moved the discussion to the proper place to discuss the sources.
If you refuse to read the Federal documents posted in this thread because you are too focused on Reddit drama, that is on you. Either post the specific source that overrides the Federal Register and the CBO report, or let the people who are actually reading the documents discuss it. Saying evidence exists somewhere else is not an argument.
First, that link is hilarious, using links that Chat GPT sent u is funny. But seriously, look at the cover page of that PDF.
Field Manual 4-02.283, Treatment of Nuclear and Radiological Casualties.
Publication Date: December 20, 2001.
You are using a medical manual from 2001 to try and disprove a Congressional Budget Office audit from 2006.
The CBO report came out five years later.
The NRC License amendment I cited is from 2016, fifteen years later.
A medical manual describes general hazards for doctors, it often carries over text from much older manuals. It is not a current production audit. The CBO report is newer and it specifically audited the upgrade program money. The actual budget audit overrides an outdated medical handbook
And my entire point is that so is yours. Therefore the sources can’t be used as they aren’t definitive.
This ban be turned around against you just the same while the logic still holding true.
This proves nothing as the term HAP has not been definitively proven to mean DU in hull.
An assumption on your part. Heavy can just as well just refer to the weight in general and the DU present in the turrets. Both interpretations work just as well and covers all basses.
By pure logic and semantics it does.
I have no idea and any sort of answer from any side of the argument would be speculative. Same with why it was removed before that. We don’t know and can only guess. And guesses are not accepted for reporting.
The licence still covers the DU turrets and the 5 prototypes. There was no need to “maintain” it as the expire date was 2016. They didn’t need to do anything about it.
No no, You are arguing for the term HAP to mean DU in all it’s parts. That is where you’re faltering. Already at the first step. I agree that every subsequent step logically tracks if that is the case. but if you’re wrong there and the HAP only has DU in the turrets then all other subsequent sources still hold true with my explanations. You’re only dismissing the explanations of the subsequent sources because you fail to accept that there are more than one way to interpret the HAP definition. If you accept that there is more than one way to read the HAP definition then there is no faulty logic in the rest.
The Supplement F of the previously linked document only mentions risk for maintenance personell when in contact with the turret:
You and i are both doing the exact same thing here, i’m just walking ion one direction and you the other. My point is that both ways to walk could be correct and we have no way to know since the sources are inconclusive. So they can’t be used to definitively argue in either direction.
Heavy armor can still mean other kinds of non DUY armor and be present in the hull. If the term “HAP” is “increased armor value and weight” then there is no mental gymnastics involved. There has been no definition that all the parts must contain DU for the packet to be called HAP.
This however is the only source that specifically says no to DU on Abrams hull. Yours does not, your source needs to say that the US fed is consistent with congress, which are two different parties and have nothing to do with each other, and that was by design. Your interpretation is understandable, but a massive stretch.
You are citing a medical manual from 2001 to disprove a Congressional Budget Office audit from 2006.
The CBO report came out five years later. In that time, the M1A1 AIM fleet-wide refurbishment program ramped up.
A medical manual provides general safety tips for doctors. It is not an engineering document or a production record. The CBO report specifically audited the manufacturing budget for the AIM program.
If the CBO told Congress in 2006 that the Army was paying for Heavy Armor in the hull, that overrides an outdated medical guide from 2001. Old data does not disprove new data. You are arguing that because a 25 year old first aid book didn’t update its text, the multi-million dollar upgrade program listed in the federal budget never happened.
You are claiming that Heavy Armor could just refer to weight. That interpretation is factually impossible because of the text in the Federal Register.
Section 3, Paragraph A: “…maximum potential exposure to radiation from the Heavy Armor System…”
General weight does not emit radiation. Steel does not emit radiation.
The Army explicitly tied the name Heavy Armor System to the emission of radiation.
Therefore, Heavy Armor equals Radioactive Armor.
So when the CBO Report states Heavy armor added to hull, it effectively states Radioactive armor added to hull.
Your theory that it is a mixed package where the hull is non-radioactive fails because of the NRC License.
Item 9 authorizes the use of Depleted Uranium in tank turrets and hulls.
It does not authorize the use of DU in “The Heavy Armor Packet.” It specifically lists the Hull as a destination for the material.
If the hull was the non-radioactive part of the package, the NRC would not list it as a location for DU use.
There is no ambiguity here. The Army defined the system as radioactive. The CBO placed that system in the hull. The NRC licensed the hull for uranium. You are creating ambiguity where none exists to confuse the issue.
It’s not factually impossible. It is in fact heavier. I have never claimed the package doesn’t include DU, the thing i have claimed is that there is nothing saying that all parts of the HAP has DU in them.
If only the turret part has DU in it that statement still holds true.
Here is another fault, your synonymizing “Heavy Armor System” with “Heavy Armor” .
So the last conclusion isn’t AUTOMATICALLY so.
Not by default. You have defined things one way but that is not the only way so this conclusion is not the only one.
It doesn’t.
Yes, but does not force them to apply it to every tank. 5 prototypes is enough to cover it.
Yes, they would have to for the 5 prototypes either way.
There is.
Yes, but not all parts by definition (nails in box). Your making assumptions.
Yes, that doesn’t mean it’s DU there.
For the 5 prototypes.
The ambiguity is already there, you’re just failing to see it.
If you cannot hold a logical argumentation where you are able to see the validity in both sides of the discussion then there is no point for me to continue arguing here. Both our arguments are not mutually exclusive within the limited evidence and the limited premises provided. If you cannot see that then there is really no point in continuing here.
All i can say is that your arguments will not in any way hold up for bug reporting this to Gaijin. With the sources provided they are inconclusive at best. (Edit: here are the developers answers from when this was brought up years ago: Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams )
I hope you at some point realize your mistakes in your arguments and logic here, it will greatly help you in your search for better sources in the future and make for more constructive arguments and solutions to problems and discussions.
You are claiming both arguments have equal validity. They do not.
My argument relies on the standard government definitions:
The Federal Register defines Heavy Armor as the radioactive DU package.
The CBO Report uses that exact capitalized term to describe the upgrade to the M1A1 AIM hull.
The NRC License lists the hull as a radioactive component.
This requires no assumptions. It just requires reading the text.
Your argument, however, relies on a massive assumption:
You assume that the CBO used the term Heavy Armor in the 2006 audit to describe a non-radioactive composite for the AIM fleet, even though the Army defined Heavy Armor as radioactive in the Federal Register, and even though the CBO used the term Improved Composite for the IPM1 in the very same table.
You are forcing a scenario where the Army uses one specific legal term (Heavy Armor) to mean two completely different materials (DU and Non-DU) depending on whether it is convenient for your 5-tank theory.
That is not a valid alternative interpretation. That is assigning a contradictory definition to a federal document to create ambiguity where none exists.
And regarding the NRC license. You keep saying the 5 prototypes cover it.
Item 9 authorizes the possession of DU Hulls.
If the hull was the non-radioactive nail in your box analogy, the NRC would have NO jurisdiction to license it. The fact that they license the hull proves the hull is the radioactive nail.
You are choosing to believe that a restriction on a schoolhouse site license overrides the mass-production audit of the Congressional Budget Office.
I have a document of armor profile from swedish 1994 trails of the m1a2 but I don’t know if theyre classified, can i send them to you and check it out?
There are no standard government definitions. You are placing meaning into sentences that does not explicitly state those things.
Your falling into the “A equals B so therefore B must equal A” fallacy.
All dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs.
I highly recommend taking a course or two in Scientific theory and Scientific philosophy.
See above.
It states that they are allowed to have them, not that all of them are.
The CBO source mentions both hull and turret. The turret can be radioactive and the hull not radioactive in both sources without failing to meet the logic i have set out. It fails to meet your logic, but not mine.
It means BOTH at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. They are describing a system, not a specific material that is used in all parts of said system.
They are.
There is ambiguity. Please highlight where in that federal document it states “DU in hull” EXPLICITLY. If it is not explicit then there is ambiguity.
Please note that that document differentiate between “packet” and “system” . A packet being part of the system does not mean that all parts of the system contain the packet. A room having a yellow wall does not mean that all walls in that room are yellow.
???
This makes no sense at all.
“You are allowed to have as many radioactive nails (hulls) as you want”
“Ok, i will keep these 5 radioactive nails here with my thousands of other non-radioactive nails”
“You are also allowed to have as many radioactive screws (turret) as you want”
“Ok, all my screws will be radioactive and i will keep them next to all my nails regardless if those nails are radioactive or not”
The above logic works perfectly with the licence.
There is absolutely nothing with that licence that says that all hulls they have MUST be radioactive. Just that they CAN be if they want to.
It’s not a “schoolhouse site license”… The CBO is also just a study, not the set budget.
Edit:
The CBO also mentions “heavy armor” being present on Bradley’s and howitzers on page 21;
Problem is we went over this 2 years ago gaijin doesnt care. Russia has to have fake preforming ERA. non exploding ammo carousels and Fake AGMs. US is playing with both hands ties behind thier back lol
The CBO is not an executive federal agency. Ur entire statement collapsed. CBO does not have any obligations for following anything the federal register published unless it is a law, which the use of ‘heavy armour = DU’ is not.
You are misapplying logic rules to avoid a standard definition.
This is not a “dogs and mammals” fallacy. It is a definition of terms.
If the Army defines the term “Big Mac” as “Two all-beef patties,” and the CBO reports that “Big Macs were added to the lunch menu,” you cannot argue that they might have only added the buns. The definition carries the ingredients.
The Federal Register defines “Heavy Armor” as the “Depleted Uranium package.”
The CBO Report states “Heavy armor added to hull.”
Therefore, the DU package was added to the hull.
You argue that the License is just “permission” and doesn’t prove they actually mass-produced them.
That is why Source 2 (The CBO Report) is critical.
The License provided the legal authority (Permission).
The CBO Report audited the M1A1 AIM program and confirmed the upgrades were paid for and installed (Proof of Purchase).
We have the Permission (NRC) and the Receipt (CBO).
You are arguing that despite having the Permission and the Receipt, the Army secretly decided not to build them, except for 5 prototypes, and then lied to the CBO about it.
Also, calling the CBO Report “just a study” is incorrect. Table A-1 is titled “Characteristics of Models of the Abrams Tank.” It lists the physical properties of the existing inventory. It uses the past tense “Added.” It is a record of the fleet configuration, not a theoretical proposal.
Your argument requires the “Heavy Armor System” to be a meaningless label where the hull contains no Heavy Armor material. My argument accepts the Army’s definition that the System contains the Package, and the Package contains the DU.
You are misunderstanding how a government audit works.
The CBO gets its data from the Department of the Army. They review the Army’s budget requests and procurement forms.
The term Heavy Armor originated from the Army, not the CBO. The CBO is simply reporting on the program that the Army submitted.
Since the Army defined the program as the DU package in the Federal Register, and the Army submitted the budget data to the CBO, the term carries the Army’s definition.
The CBO does not invent its own dictionary for tank parts. They use the Program of Record names provided by the military. If the Army calls it Heavy Armor, the CBO calls it Heavy Armor. And the Army says Heavy Armor is DU.
And since u mentioned army, the same applies to the manual, yet the manual very specifically states no DU.
Logically applying the findings of the manual, the HA also incorporates a stronger hull, with no DU, which would mean the CBO is correct in saying a certain armor package is applied to the hull but whether it was DU is ur opinion. Again if u disregard official documents which states against ur sources, which are indirect, this is a completely useless conversation.
