Its on the topic of the Amendments which pertain to hull information its still on topic
1 Like
I mean, if you actually ignore what the documents do and say. He came in saying the document only renewed the license, didn’t change anything. When he was proven wrong, he started throwing out red herrings, backpedaling, trying to move the goal post, but then he says he agrees with us. Does he? Because he came in not even understanding what the forms did, originally arguing in bad faith.
2 Likes
Did you? Re-read I mean
Gaijin can be very hit or miss about communicating with the community.
Personally, and I’m not trying to add insult to injury, but “Mains” in general, especially “US Mains” here on the English forums are a radiological material themselves. I think gaijin might actually be too cowardly, else lazy, to explain the “why” of each document being rejected.
I think this is mostly laziness, and it has more to do with trying to explain their “creative view” of “competitive balance”. I don’t think they’ve actually thought out exactly what they want to say. That’s why there’s been two blogs about the subject with little constructive changes.
There’s also a boat-load of nuance to understanding machines of war and their actual capabilities, versus what is perceived. That nuance is entirely lost on most people who cling to memetic tokens like “Krupp Steel” or “73 Easting” etc.
1 Like
This should be enough.
1 Like
Yes. She rolls her eyes and moves on to something else. Doesn’t bother either of us.
To make things entirely transparent. I jumped on a small mistake Trackula made because of how rude he was being to others, and how self-confident he was in what he was saying.
I make a self-employed living dealing with the US government and their forms on a daily basis. I may make a mistake here or there, (I’m willing to concede calling it an Amendment Form even though it precisely is a Material License) but I generally don’t miss.
1 Like
When he comes in claiming that the documents only renewed the license, and changed nothing, then tried to say that this document isn’t supportive enough…despite being the AMENDED text of the license of the SAME LICENSE Gaijin uses to justify DU in turrets and NOT hulls, I can say he wasn’t arguing in good faith.
Then when shown how the document changes the license, he keeps trying to select little snippet and claim that only bold text matters, etc… He was proven wrong, then continued to try to change the argument, deflect, throw red herrings.
We can prove the form, called an Amendment by the NRC, change the license in question. His original argument was that the document only renewed the license. Something completely false, before trying to throw all the smoke and recant. I’m tired of these people coming in without even understanding what the documents do and say.
2 Likes
There, Count, read that. No. 9 did not specifically change the language, that was in a prior amendment. There’s no bad faith on my part.
You really don’t read carefully enough. Slow down and analyze, it will help you. You’re sharp as is.
2 Likes
Now lets move on and looks for the rest yeah?
1 Like
The point is that Amendment No. 09 changed SUB-1536 from the last version, the last version being the document that Gaijin cited as their “proof” to justify their decision. The license they decided to cite was the version dated Feb 22 2006. Amendment No. 09 is the document that directly modified that version. There are no missing parts from here to there.
Amendment No. 06 does a good job showing that in the respective fields it once mentioned a strict limit of 5 hulls. Amendment No. 09 removes all mentions of a limit on the amount of hulls, and even authorizes turrets and hulls to use DU “as needed” in the same field/line item. This is it. This the change between the Feb 2006 version of SUB-1536 that Gaijin cites, and Amendment No. 09 is the Aug 2006 version of the text. Any limits on the amount of hulls to be used are gone, and hulls are now authorized to have DU armor in them “as needed.” Like the turrets were listed in Amendment No. 06.
2 Likes
We need to keep our bug reports going.
Heres where i think you were mistaken.
No.9 was AUG 06
The renewal that still included the 5 hulls language was FEB 06. (this is what Gaijin used)
1 Like
Anyone found what variant of abrams had the 5 DU hull’s?
The document Gaijin cited shows 5 M1A1 hulls. Considering that same document cites the FONSI results leading to the decision to go ahead with planned changes to AIM and SEP production, along with this document from 1998 talking about the FONSI and the 1996 armor change, and that they were cutting in protection upgrades into production at Lima, it means AIM Abrams and SEPs should get the hull armor.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-07-14/html/98-18674.htm
5 Likes
That’s a good catch…
However I’d stay away from this license entirely at this point. I’ve done some deeper digging, and TACOM, especially from 2004 onwards, is all about lifecycle management, and is mostly a laboratory for research as well as decommissioning radiological materials.
If you read the later amendments, there is a concerning detail about byproduct, source, and/or special nuclear material (think unlisted decay materials that you can’t predict beforehand).
The information about TACOM both online and on the NRC ADAMS library suggests (at least to me) that while circumstantial in proof regarding the existence of DU armor in hulls and turrets, it would probably be best to look further into the General Dynamics licenses instead. There might be better detail to be found there.
3 Likes
The problem with staying away is until they recognize the amendment gaijin can keep pointing to the 5 hull limit no matter what documents are provided.
Man I stop looking for a minute (few hours) what happened in here
1 Like
I think it may be a mistake and the author confused the M1A2 with the M1A1HA, which would match in terms of armor ( better KE and worse HEAT ), and the second thing is that the M1A2 commander’s station was not poor, it was probably the best in the world.
3 Likes