It was a joke posted on Reddit, it also had “Dont look at left tabs” to it. Its just a joke by someone on Reddit. It has the intention of using such weaponry to build the joke.
2 Likes
Went right over my head lol😆
Or maybe the sarcasm wasn’t expressed all the way lol Regardless- it’s funny
war thunder tank protection if it was realistic (pretend the left tabs are both apfsds please and thanks):
Okay bro what is in letter b, the letter dated August 12th.
Next you need to understand is that this license can be amended at anytime with another request. Nothing is ever set in stone when it comes to development. You have nothing unless you find something that say M1A2Sepv2 have only turret armor.
2 Likes
Turret has better APDSFS protection than hull, talking of T-90M, so it would be the opposite.
Wrong. The document was amended to remove any of limits on hulls. The strictness you insist was there was removed by Amendment No. 9. Cope.
Line item 17 has nothing to do with materials being regulated, and only defers all authority to this license unless a more strict regulation takes priority. You can’t read, stop making everyone else suffer.
13 Likes
also that would be really funny especially if the protection analysis tab was cut out (and the text with it lol)
1 Like
What…
point 3 in amendment 9 renews the original document and amends it “as follows:”. i.e everything after point 3 in amendment no.9 are changes applied to the application (and thus the original SUB-1536 document).
and “more restrictive than REGULASTIONS” NOT within the document hierarchy. as in: “if the rules and laws about nuclear material management are less restrictive than described in these documents then these documents trump those laws.” that part has nothing to do with changes WITHIN the “ecosystem” of the applications, amendments and renewals of SUB-1536.
You said:
and that is partially wrong, the application (ML060590665.pdf) is applying to renew no.8. but amendment no.9 is amending the the SUB-1536 licence, not the no.8 amendment.
and even IF it was amending no.8 it is STILL changing the limit of amount to “as needed”. it does not matter what document it is amending (for this discussion) since it is still amending all of those points listed and making them the current valid version of those points.
thus making the new amount of DU approved to be “as needed” and NOT “as described in application”.
had they kept the 5 hull limit then point 8. A. in amendment no.9 would not have been writtten and would have been not brought up.
and to note:
the start of the application (ML060590665.pdf) even says “The renewal application consolidates prior amendments to the license and represents the current program.” maning that the application contains ALL prior changes to the licence. so when amendment no.9 gos into effect it becomes the current valid licence.
and if you read at the top of amendment no.9: " a license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire, possess, and transfer byproduct, source, and special nuclear material designated below; to use such material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated below;"
this means that the application does not control how they can use the DU, the amendment does.
The Army then has the option to internally CHOOSE to limit themselves to 5 hulls. but they are NOT bound by the licence to such a limit.
Edit:
to state it really simple: “we would like this much please” and then getting the answer “you can have as much as you want” means that you are not limited to an amount, you can choose to still only take the amount you originally intended but there is nothing stopping you from taking more.
- the change from M1A1 to M1A2 literally changes out almost all components in the tank that aren’t large.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA323152.pdf
page 3: “The scope of these changes is
remarkable when one realizes that, in the previous generation MlAl, the Army has a tank that is about
10% digital and 90% analog. With the M1A2, the proportion is reversed, with 90% being digital and
only about 10% analog.” sounds to me like they had all the opportunity in the world to change around the layout at the same time to counteract a potential displacement of center of gravity.
Edit2:
sidenote:
(
amendment
/əˈmɛn(d)m(ə)nt/
noun
- a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc.
“an amendment to existing bail laws”
)
notice the word CHANGE in there?
9 Likes
better apfsds protection versus the wrath of god (historically accurate m829a2)
It fails even against T-80U hull with K-5.
2 Likes
did you take into account the anti-era its supposed to have or nah
M829A2 didnt have it but M829A3 did, which can pen T-72B3 hull (both this and M829A2 failing are taken from YouTube armour simulations, you re free to doubt them)
Source? I’ve seen the original Jane’s report that mentioned K-5 stopping M829A1, but the only time I’ve seen M829A2 as being the claimed projectile were secondhand quotes that edited the original Jane’s text.
1 Like
Video simulation with K-5
Video without K5, showing how great M829A2 works against T-80BV (late) armour layout
Will need to head out so sorry for late replies, you’re free to doubt sources.
As of today, top tier rounds can penetrate T-80U, T-72B3 UFP at places without ERA cpverege.
4 Likes
oh well thanks for showing these
i could’ve sworn that m829a2 was the anti-era one (i thought it was and then a3 was an improvement on it, because i read that a2 was the us’ response to K5) but my entire “argument” was intended to be satire anyway lmao
Oh right, I forgot about those guys
It had it, as did the M1A1 HA+, I don’t even need to post my own info as Vitctor_eu already gave that:
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/9/a/9a64b9f678477aad7d5f28d3fc2e17a459700f71.png
Why do you say I am incorrect, then prove that I was right and then say “Regardless”?
You weren’t correct, you stated their were only 62 Block II M1s, that isn’t correct, the Block II was the M1A2, of which the US produced significantly more then 62 M1A2s. What I initially gave you was what was the Secretary of Defense was asking for in the 1991 budget, i.e. for the 1991 budget they were only asking for 62 M1A2s, however a few years later they started upgrading more tanks to the M1A2 (Block II):
When you say “Completely new” what does that mean to you?
Exactly that, they were completely refurbishing the tanks to make them “brand new”:
The AIM/SA then also started incorporating bigger modifications including the 2002 armour package.
3 Likes
It’s telling that in his highlights, he only shows one part of the document (item 17) and then claims that nothing else in the document changed except for the dates listed. Funny he left out all the stuff that was actually changed.
@STGN They wouldn’t bother amending a license just for the sake of changing the dates on it. They would have simply renewed it when it expired. But the fact that you had to leave EVERYTHING out to highlight an item you cherry-picked, but more hilariously didn’t even understand, says everything it needs to about your argument.
You’re wrong. You’ve been wrong the entire time. Where in the amendment does it say “5 hulls” or any limit on hulls? Why are hulls and turrets authorized in the same manner, with no limits?
Even better, you didn’t even notice the most important part of item 17, which states the amended license takes precedence, and the document below is simply the document being amended by the form.
The fact is the amended license removed all limits on hulls, and granted unlimited use of DU in turrets AND hulls. Specifically provided in this amended license. Cope.
6 Likes
Simulations that prove precisely nothing. Those rounds in all likelihood were fired at a t 72b 89. If they didn’t work they would not have been adopted. We know firing trials were done with m829a1 and failed. It would be absolutely ridiculous to assume those rounds were not fired at those tanks when the US had them to hand.
