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.
You can’t be serious :D
It’s says "The Nuclear Regular Commissions regulations shall govern unless the STATEMENTS, REPRESENTATIONS and Procedures in the LICENSEE’S APPLICATION and correspondence are MORE RESTRICTIVE that the regulations.
No Amendment No.9 clearly says in accordance with letter dated February 22, 2006.
We don’t even know if they changed the wording compared to Amendment no.8 they certainly didn’t change the wording in amendment no.10
No, the US army specify refenced ML060590665.pdf until 2016. Which mentions the hull limitation, of cause they COULD have change it, but they didn’t which is the point, there were no clandestine DU put into hulls in the early 2000’s.
- If you find that argument compelling, who am I to force your deliberation of illusion.
Notice how “Expiration Date” is written below “to read as follows:” Changing the expiration date is also changing or dare I say amending the Material License.
LOL hahaha, you are a funny guy Count-Trackula, I will give you that!
Thank you for providing a source that specify only mentions DU turrets and they they are marked as such.
I can’t even this is so funny, what is going on?
jesus christ…
AND CORRESPONDENCE
not only the application. thus also including the amendment.
yes. they are accepting the renewal, and ALSO amending (CHANGING) it based on the letter dated February 22, 2006. they are NOT accepting it in its current form, they amend (CHANGE) it and give a license according to the scope listed IN AMENDMENT NO.9.
yes we do:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0625/ML062540068.pdf
SEVERAL ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS.
oh absolutely, but everything else after that also is. would you not agree that the rest of the document follows after that?
Edit:
its like if you apply for a drivers license, want to be able to drive a car and you get a license back stating that you are allowed to drive a car AND a quadbike. just because your application did not include the quadbike does not mean you are not allowed to drive one. you are now allowed since the license included it.
6 Likes
Those images are not related to the same weapon used,… therefore it means nothings ^^"
OMG
It’s a MATERIAL LICENSE that has been Amended:
The license was amended because of the application. The is no sperate “amendment”. They have changed the MATERIAL LICENSE several times, or they have amended the license several times which ever semantics you prefer.
Thats a weird way of saying that I am right, unless you actually have no.8 somewhere?
What are you talking about, I haven’t denied any part of the document? The License specifically says that restrictions that the US army places on themselves via their application can supersede the license. I.e. no new DU hulls until 2016 at least.
its not based on a No.8 its based on a No.6:
expiration date 31 march 2006.
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”
6 Likes
I have yet to see a document that says this though.
4 Likes
Amendment No. 10 for Department of the Army, License No. SUB-1536. (nrc.gov)
The Material License was amended a 10th time in 2016 See where point 17 exceptions refenreces nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf
And the inventory that they are keeping is also described in ML060590665:
So unlimited Turrets, 5 hulls.
2 Likes
Still doesn’t exactly say it. So all I see is an interpretation of the document by some random person.
4 Likes