https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf
"Enclosed are three copies of a NRC license renewal
application for NRC License SUB 1536. The NRC license is
scheduled to expire 31 March 2006. "
the renewal is referring back to an amendment no.6. which DOES contain the 5 hulls limit.
amendment no9. removes that item from the licence making the use in turret AND hulls unlimited.
this is completely wrong. point 17. in the amendment states the exact opposite. “Except as specifically provided otherwise in this licence, the licensee shall conduct its program in accordance […] with documents below” (the renewal application and letter).
as in: “unless we changed anything in this licence compared to the application; follow what you said in your application, if we changed something, then follow the licence”.
how would an application trump the licence?? that makes no sense.
and again, the previous licence contained the 5 hulls as a limit, the new amended one does not. as in it has changed the scope of the amount allowed.
Edit:
Amendment no.9 litterally states:
8.A “Uranium(depleted un U-235), as needed”
9. “authorized Use:” A and B. Tank turret and hulls
meaning point 8.A also applies to hulls and has the amount limit “as needed”
no.13 is talking about procedure, not amount. “conduct” NOT “keep”. the word inventory is both a noun and a verb, they are using it as a verb.
what it is talking about is this part in the letter Feb 22, 2006:
same here, “Except as specifically provided otherwise in this licence, the licensee shall conduct its program in accordance […] with documents below” (the renewal application and letter).
so the licence still trumps the application.
We are all random people, so unless that other random dude on the forum magically gets a reply on the FOIA request or whatever it’s called. I won’t believe random people saying anything with 100% certainty like you did.
There is no restrictions. Not even having to argue this point, if that was the limit when the license was signed. there is nothing stopping the army from changing it the vary next year or at anytime before 2016.
Exactly, that document means nothing other then the army was capable of adding DU to the hull. Besides that it is meaningless because SEPv2 came out in the end of 2007.
“The amount of DU in the armor is UNLIMITED per the NRC license. It provides armor protection for the Abrams Tank.”
Please point out where it mentions any limits. Because it says unlimited, and says it provides protection for the tank. The hull is part of the tank. If you knew anything about the Abrams, you’d know that the only casting numbers to identify the tank are on the turret, that’s why it mentions the markings. If you have to use a radiac meter because the letters aren’t visible or damaged, starting with the turret will let you know that it is at least an early HA model that might not have had DU in the hull.
NOWHERE DOES IT SAY SUB-1536 LIMITS THE ABRAMS IN ANY CAPACITY!
…and in 2001 they talked about the FONSI test showing no reason not to change the plans to add DU to future Abrams upgrades, including the AIM series and SEP V1. M1A1 HAs (the original MUH 5 HULLS), M1A1 AIMs, FEPs, and all M1A2 SEPs should have DU in the hull. No matter what the illiterate clown says.
Since theres a dedicated topic for the Challenger 2 - " Everything whats wrong with the Challenger 2"(or smth like that) Maybe it would be a good idea to create one for the M1 too? It really gained quite a lot of attention
Is it even worth making another bug report with all the sources found? I feel like the devs have an inability put two and two together when it comes to understanding sources.
I feel like it has to keep being pushed until they can find some internal justification, outside of whatever hypocritical/ self-defeating logic they use now, that allows them to accept(and actually implement) our reports. Stingers and Abrams modeling+armor are the biggest issues atm.
