Not to mention what I sent states use of DU as armor in the Abrams since 1988, and mentions the rework of DU armor in the M1A2 which im Assuming means the placement as that only makes sense to me
1 Like
as for the poor commander station, it fits the M1A1, but not the M1A2, which had CITV and early BMS and was better than the CR2.
1 Like
Then scroll down to page 21 on the document that Gaijin cited…:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf
The one that is amended by Amendment No. 09 on Aug 2006 to remove limits on the amount of hulls that can have DU. The FONSI statement and decision was dated 2001.
2 Likes
Different license number. I’d imagine that has to do with decommissioning tanks, or modifying them for export.
2 Likes
Well it specifically mentions DU “Front Armor” rather then Turret armor as usual so its something I guess
7 Likes
This was most likely from the very early stages of the M1A1 Block II testing (1988/89 testing) i.e. prior to HAP-2 / the Brits improving the CE protection that the M1A2 would get, meaning it only had the M1A1 HA armour and overall was still probably quite close to the M1A1 HA, that said I don’t know the specifics of what the M1A1 Block II had in regards to improvements during that time:
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/d/e/de153160717cced094df6ecb7fdbbc9f05afcb6d.png
If you knew how many tanks went in through Anniston from the earliest of January 11th, 2021 to May 31, 2021. Then yes, it would be.
1 Like
no offence taken, English is my second language yes, but i would like to think that i read and write better English than a majority of native speakers. An amendment can Either just accept an application as is or both accept it and change the scope of it at the same time. all of the applications and amendments we have access to are all referring to a main licence SUB-1536 that is continuously changed and renewed. it is always the newest amendment that is the valid one and all prior to that one are no longer in effect. what many seem to misunderstand is that the amendment we read is the actual licence (in the same way you have a physical driver licence that can be changed if you get new permissions for new vehicles, send in an application and get a new licence back).
correct.
No. 9 came into effect Aug 24 2006 (bottom of amendment no9 and top of cover letter states the date). What if the routine of bolding changes was not implemented before then? what if it isn’t a routine? what if that is only made when its small changes to make it easier to see what has been changed?
(https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0624/ML062410022.pdf)
We know that amendment no.9 made a lot of changes according to the cover letter.
“Please note that several additions and modifications have been made to your NRC licence. Please review the document carefully.”
(https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0625/ML062540068.pdf)
Applications states exactly this:
“The renewal application consolidates prior amendments to
the license and represents the current program.” (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf)
Meaning that ALL amendments prior to this letter being sent on Feb 22 2006 is included in the application.
Point 5.a.2 in application limits amount to 5 hulls.
this means that the limit still existed in 7 and 8 since they are consolidated into the application.
and we know that amendment no 9 is then missing that limit. so that change must have come in no 9 and not 7 or 8 since those are both already consolidated into the application which still contains the limit of 5 hulls.
if that change happened before Feb 22 2006 (when the application was sent) in either of those amendments (7 or 8), then the application would no longer contain the limit of 5 hulls.
that is not entirely correct, as previously stated, no.7 and no.8 happened before Feb 22 2006, application sent in includes those amendments, application still has limit of 5 hulls.
what you are correct about is the likely existence of more precise correspondence in between Feb 28 2006 (when application was received by the NRC) and Aug 24 2006 (when licence renewal and change was approved) that talk about changes. but we know that changes were made.
Amendment no 11 is the last one that changes the date (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1808/ML18088B370.pdf) and we know the date changes between no 10 and 11 and yet it is not marked in bold.
Amendment 13 (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1933/ML19331A319.pdf) no bold text yet changes must have been made and the expiration date is the same.
And this is the latest version (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2028/ML20283A426.pdf) notice the lack of bold text. changes has to have been made, otherwise an amendment would not have been made.
(note point 17 listing all the correspondence and changes asked for and made)
4 Likes
It wouldn’t matter regardless. The text of the Amendments contain text that say things like:
“ANY CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW.” Not “ANY CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW, BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE IN BOLD TEXT.”
Or “SUB-1536 is RENEWED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO READ AS FOLLOWS.” Language like this isn’t changed by the presence or absence of bold text. Some of these documents had no bold text, yet the text that was in the document and the relevant line item/field/part of the form would still supersede the relating or previous version of any of the items addressed in the amended form.
The Taiwan idea it is indeed very good. Do we have open official sources that state this?
@Count_Trackula @Necronomica guys they rejected that document. You guys need to thing some different strategy that is not based on this document.
Like with every Abrams exported to foreign country, US need to replace old armour with FMS one.
I know, but do we have a document acknowledging that they removed DU armor from the hull? If you guys have it it would be a very good source
1 Like
But it’s the document they use to justify the limit on 5 hulls. It’s SUB-1536. They can’t say SUB-1536 is why there are only 5 hulls, because SUB-1536 actually doesn’t say that. It ties into the FONSI statement and decision to cut in the modified armor package design change in 1996.
You say they rejected it, but they didn’t. They are using an obsolete version of the SUB-1536 license to say that there is a limit, when SUB-1536 does not do what they claim.
1 Like
I know that. But it does not work like that, because they can keep denying it. You need to try and think something else. There must be evidence elsewhere.
They are denying the only proof that they used to allow DU in the turrets, but somehow deny that it allows it hulls…even though it didn’t limit hulls since August 2006. It’s the same SUB-1536 that they use to show where the DU would be in the hull.
SUB-1536 is the battle. Just because they deny it, doesn’t mean they are correct.
try looking for General dynamics form like this one.
but a later one
8 Likes
Good call. I guess try looking around 1996 for the armor package update. I’ll plug it in.
did they? where?