What’s even funnier, the obsolete since amended document that they cite for “MUH 5 HULLS” actually tells Gaijin which tanks were to get the DU hulls, and was signed late 2001.
Considering that the little graphic showing the location of the armor indicates the original of the “MUH 5 HULLS” were M1A1 hulls, it could be argued that an M1A1 HA (late or +) should very well have it. The Abrams from the AIM programs, including FEP. …and of course, as listed in the document…M1A2 SEP V1!
The full page of the British document that I posted would suggest that 1st gen DU armour had the poor CE protection and 2nd gen DU armour was the stuff Britain helped develop to fix that flaw.
Completely agree, both what you shared coupled with the US documents I gave seems to indicate this as being the case, that armour was then accepted in June 1990 and subsequently used by the M1A1 HCs and then M1A2s, etc.
I’ll have to keep looking, but I swear I had seen a document that explicitly stated which M1s had the DU hulls.
Russia literally tried to pull a ukraine on Helsinki in ww2 and had a Duchary in Finland for 100 years becore independence was gained in 1917. And sweden and russia both come from the same vikings roughly. They likely see it as part of russian culture or something
No, you need to learn more about the history of the Abrams before you start speaking about this, so you can actually participate in a conversation and not become an encyclopedia reading.
I already said 1990 so why do you come at med with all these other things? Like you don’t even understand things such as lead time on production, it’s no guarantee that just because a technology had been developed that the tank rolling of the production line the next day automatically has it.
Why do you say I am incorrect, then prove that I was right and then say “Regardless”?
Then you say m1 production didn’t stop in 1990, when I specifically was talking about the M1A1 being close to done?
When you say “Completely new” what does that mean to you?
M1A1HA+ is probably in practice M1A1HC
And since you missed it:
Pretty much yep, the M1A1 HC was basically just the USMC version of the HA however with the upgraded DU armour, although it also had an improved slip ring and a deep water fording kit, the M1A1 HA+ (common) was pretty much the Army’s variant of the HC which is where all the “common” naming comes from, so yea, the only real difference afaik was the fording kit for the USMC.
Those are 2 different projectiles.
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.
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.
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.
also that would be really funny especially if the protection analysis tab was cut out (and the text with it lol)
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.
Edit2:
sidenote:
(
amendment
/əˈmɛn(d)m(ə)nt/
noun
“an amendment to existing bail laws”
)
notice the word CHANGE in there?
better apfsds protection versus the wrath of god (historically accurate m829a2)
