You misunderstood, I when I said M1A1 production had nearly completed I meant including Heavy Armor Versions. Which as we have just learned sacrificed CE protection for KE protection, The British designed a new Chobham for M1A2 but only 62 were build, when they then digitized the Abrams with AIM they likely included the new Chobham maybe even a variant of it, what is described in the document you posted.
So all tanks have been fitted with new Chobham as they have been rebuilt, is my guess.
Wrong. If you actually scrolled up on the document, you would see this.:
Notice how the numbers highlighted represent different fields corresponding to the different numbers. This is to help people find and identify certain parts of the document, and to make referencing the information in the location easier. Here is the link where you can find it.:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf
Every other amended form, which makes previous forms obsolete with specific amendments (changes) when talking about the related issues and areas of the license, remove any and all limits or even mentions of a restrictions regarding the radioactive material authorized, the physical form and state of the radioactive material, the amount radioactive material, and the purpose of the radioactive material.
So regarding:
"RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL
B Element and mass number b chemical and/or form and c maximum
amount which will be possessed at any one time
PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH LICENSED MATERIAL WILL BE USED"
These are the items and issues that were addressed by the amended forms. Regarding the amended forms, they have removed all limits of the original document that stated a hard limit of DU use limited to 5 hulls. The later amended documents give the same authorization to turrets and hulls in the same fields of the later documents. No where in the later documents are there any mentions of the material being authorized to be limited to a number of hulls versus turrets, and both are given the status to be authorized for DU use in the same manner without limits.
So every time they talk about the material specifically licensed, the form of it, and where and how it is used, they have removed any limits regarding hulls versus turrets, and both granted the same unlimited status of use. Please tell me where these amended documents that make SUB-1536 to read in its entirety, pertaining to the define items and issues of the authorized materials and their use, which removed any and all mentions of limits of hulls…WHERE DO THE NEW DOCUMENTS PRESERVE OR MENTION ANY LIMIT ON HULLS?
Merry Christmas as well! :)
Though I do have a question. Is it worth trying to provide accurate information and evidence here? Because people have tried sending the correct information to the devs via bug reports since this announcement, and the information seems to have been denied with the claim that this information was already seen and discounted previously. It doesn’t give us a whole lot of hope or faith in the process when the devs have been proven wrong, and all indications seem they would rather not address the problem.
ML060590665.pdf is the application for amendment no.9 it is not amendment no.8. No.9 doesn’t change ML060590665.pdf, it ratifies it.
The first 2000 something A1’s didn’t have DU in the turret the last 2000 something did. The IP had the same Armor as the early A1’s, that armor package was developed before IP production started. I think your source there just abbreviated the inclusion of DU in the turret to “again improved the armor package”.
As we just learned the Armor incorporated in A2 was of a new generation of Chobham because early DU armor had “bad” CE protection.
Sory I am tired of beating a dead horse, so i didn’t really read what you wrote, I am just going to say since you don’t seem to have realised it that:
ML060590665.pdf is the application for amendment no.9 it is not amendment no.8. No.9 doesn’t change ML060590665.pdf, it ratifies it.
If it’s ratifying it, how come it’s not carrying over the exact same wording then? Shouldn’t it be carrying over the exact same wording of “DU Hulls limited to 5” instead of stating “DU armor packages limited to as needed”
Wrong.
The entire point of the form is to amend License Number SUB-1536 XD
Common STGN L on display.
Do you know what the word amendment means? It is not synonymus with ratification. They are different things.
The document literally says “to read as follows”. As in; “changes to this”, not “continue to be”. The literal meaning of amendment means change.
I don’t know enough here to have further comment. But it’s the document Gaijin used as a source.
The difference here is distribution. If you have a half full backpack and need to add double the amount you can move some of the things you already have in there to a second backpack you wear in the front to even out the weight and take out some to be replaced. You still add weight yes, but in the end all of the weight does not end upp on the same side. So you are then not back or front heavy you just add to total weight without changing center of gravity.
That’s been obvious since his first post in this thread. Though his statement should probably be AMENDED ;) to read “i can’t really read.” It would go a long way in explaining the circus of his mental gymnastics.
I don’t think there is anything you can say to him. Nothing that would help him.
Why should it? I don’t get this “If” that’s what it says on amendment no.9.
Ratify: verb: ratify; 3rd person present: ratifies; past tense: ratified; past participle: ratified; gerund or present participle: ratifying
If you’re implying that it was a ratification instead of an amendment that means that the fact it makes no mention of the DU hull limit in the ratification would imply to me at the very least that this means it was ratified without said limit. Especially if said ratification says “Armor Packages as Needed” instead of “Turret Heavy Armor Packages as Needed”
Yes, but its amending no.8 not ML060590665.pdf. ML060590665.pdf was the application to amend no.8
Fair.
Is it really a serious contention that they could both add DU to the front of the turret and increase the KE protection significantly, which is primary based on mass, and that the center of gravity didn’t change?
ML060590665.pdf was likely just an application to extend the license of SUB-1536 til 2016.
So are you claiming it isn’t a ratification instead?
They ratified the amendment based on the application. They made the time extension official in other words.
So.
Just to make sure we’re clear and not talking around circles;
The initial license states essentially Heavy Armor Packages as needed in the turret and 5 in the hull
The amendment we’re referencing made after the fact merely says heavy armor package as needed.
And you’re interpreting this as it only pertaining to the turrets as an extension?
How come it doesn’t continue to carry over the limit to hull then if it’s an extension?
Hello guys!
I would like you to participate on this topic, which would affect the way MBTs are implemented in the future and their current modelling too:
I am linking it on this thread because it would play a significant role in the modelling of the Abrams tanks’ armor.
It’s only a X-Ray issue, it has the same protection levels.
