I do not see how you come to that conclusion, at all. how is 5.a.2 still valid if the points 8.A and 9.A/B in the amendment changes the scope of the licence to “as needed” for both hulls and turrets?
the items 1-4 are listed in the start of the original document https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf (page 3). they are just document number, names and addresses. it changes nothing. it just says where the DU is allowed to housed (i.e the building in which the tanks/armor resides).
the numbers in document 1 (original) and the amendment do not correspond since the amendment has more information added in the form of docket numbers and such. so a change to, let say, number 8 in original document won’t be numbered 8 in the amendment.
both 5.a.2 in original and 8.A in amendment deal with the same point “Maximum Amount which will be Possessed at Any One Time” thus changing the original licence to now be what is stated in the amendment “as needed”.
“Table 6” also mentions that half the M1A1 has the special and half has the Standard (standard here already being better than the IPM1). so the M1A2’s special armor is by default better than the standard M1A1 which in turn is already better than the IPM1 armor.
thing is. you are not straight up adding DU armor just like that. you remove the old one first, so you don’t just add a ton, you also remove 80% of that weight in old armor. Imgur: The magic of the Internet
it does not add as much weight as you probably think it does.
and you don’t need to “add” weight to the engine to compensate, you can, but you can also move components around from the front to the back of the hull and vice versa aiming to have the heavier components closer to the back to even out the weight.
Not sure if this is already a thing, but could there be a document on the forums or War Thunder site talking about what “pass[ing] your concerns to [the] Dev team” means or a more concrete way of showing the developers are considering things in depth? For a lot of people in the War Thunder forums, especially this thread and the previous spall liner thread, saying something was passed to the developers does not mean much.
You are aware of the hundreds if not thousands of US and UK servicemen who died of cancer as a result of nuclear testing right? Just sat them out there in the open or on ships the let the bomb off. Who knows what the future holds for the users of both DU shells and Armour? You are a fool to trust the military, just saying.
In actual fact Depleted Uranium used in Armour is quite similar to Asbestos in many ways to be fair in as much as it can be shielded but also it is more of an aerosol effect that causes the issue, like asbestos if you don’t interfere with it by cutting or drilling it is quite safe ,its the dust that is the issue. I know DP is not the most dangerous of toxic metals, but there is controversy surrounding it and the dangers of asbestos were covered up for years.
Anyway, not really a game issue, I guess I am dragging us a little off topic so my apologies for that.
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?
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.
I don’t know what you mean, if you add more weight, you add more weight regardless if you take out the old armor or not, and the location of this extra weight really matters is if you take out old light stuff and put in new heavy stuff you will change the center of gravity. Try putting on an empty backpack, then try standing with it, and then fill it with heavy stuff and see if you can maintain the same posture and carry it the excat same way. To spare you the trouble; you can’t, that is just how physics work.
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”
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.
