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
- sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
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”
1 Like
-
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?
3 Likes
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.
4 Likes
Why does the SEP V2 get less turret side armor than the SEP V1. Is there a source on this? @Stona_WT
3 Likes
It’s only a X-Ray issue, it has the same protection levels.
2 Likes
Oh, alright thanks for the explaination
1 Like
The more important point is that it categorizes both turrets and hulls together, with the same permissions, and all limits removed.
2 Likes
Do you have access to no.8 and or its application?
Wouldn’t matter, as Amendment No. 9 would supersede it. The obvious red herring was obsolete before you even decided to try to bring it into this.
3 Likes
i mostly play china now , but the issues plaguing america ground affects us all , every time i am teamed up with them the whole american side of the team falls apart 3 minutes in the match and 1 death leaves ,its really demotivating and depressing to see all your team leave you and go back to hangar specially when it is RU+GER vs the world type of match specially at 8.0 to 11.7 BR , i strongly want gaijin to either fix american ground tt or give us a blacklist option that allows us to select 1 nation which the players do not wants to get teamed with
3 Likes
Right. So lets add a plethora of tanks that barely made it off the drawing board into the game, give certain tanks modules that were only ever seen on DIFFERENT VARIANTS, completely disregard the historical M1A1 Krasnovian for the sake of “balancing” but you continue to shaft the Abrams because historical accuracy.
Pick one, historical accuracy or balancing. Either way you’re just contradicting yourselves. This is getting really tiring.
17 Likes
- no, the ML060590665.pdf is a licence RENEWAL of “NRC License SUB 1536”. its not an amendment.
amendment no 9 amends the original “NRC License SUB 1536”. not the previous amendment.
point NO. 3 in amendment 9: "License number SUB-1536 is renewed in
its entirety to read as follows: ".
i does not mention amendment 8 anywhere.
its like this:
You have one big licence document. (the original)
every amendment then changes or add to the original document. If several amendments change the same number/information of the original then the latest amendment is the one that is valid.
then after a few years the licence expires and needs to be renewed. it is then renewed as the original document because the amendments still exist and follows along with the renewal and still applies to the new renewal since it has the same SUB number.
- oh absolutely. i’m not saying it did not change in the slightest. but it VERY much could have changed so little that its not noticeable on that scale of that graph. we know that some army officials have stated that the weight will not make a significant change with the new armor thus it might not be noticeable in distribution of weight since they ALSO have the ability to shift weights around. its not adding armor as a standalone action. there are more things that can be done at the same time making center of gravity not change. had they added ONLY armor then yes, absolutely the center of gravity would have changed.
They’ll just keep saying its no proof…even though its common knowledge here in the west for decades. Nothing shows exact locations and dimensions.
2 Likes
bro, i’ve destroyed that shit take on weight. What are you even talking about. Quit supporting russian bias. get lost.
1 Like
No9 is existing, thsu no8 is no longer valid source.