From one random person to another, keep the dream alive!
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
ups not for you
The US Army could always have changed the license, they just had to make a new application, it was always a self-imposed limitation.
That’s fair.
I have been thinking about it and I think you are right, I probably misinterpreted no.17
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.
1 Like
“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!
You are a clown.
8 Likes
…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.
3 Likes
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
1 Like
Abrams has a few major ones but the Chally is really a pile of bugs lol
So I guess it would be a lot easier
2 Likes
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.
7 Likes
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.
3 Likes
Heres the challenger one :)
Bruh, and you had to pick THAT
I dont know how it works lmao, i just copied the link from my browser lol
1 Like
Yea yea…
That is not what it says, you illiterate guy.
“Except as specifically provided in this license…” The amended license, license number SUB-1536, which in Amendment No. 9, in Aug 2006, authorized unlimited use of DU armor in both turrets and hulls.
Which the cover sheet explains easily enough that one would hope even you might understand, but alas, here we are…:
…and then the second part of line 17. Notice the first part/sentence talks about the documents. The second part, which you foolishly cherry-picked while still not understanding a damn thing you were reading states…“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regulations shall govern unless the
statements, representations and processes in the licensees application and correspondence are more
restrictive than the regulations.”
The second part isn’t talking about the specific documents and amendments, it it talking about the authority of the NRC as a whole, and it’s authorization to license the use of DU taking precedence, unless the Army had more strict regulations that would override the NRC’s policies and regulations. The Army literally applied to amend the document, and as the first sentence shows, THE AMENDED DOCUMENT authorizes DU use in turrets AND HULLS without limits…and here we go, make sure you have your helmet on tight and your brain strapped into its safety seat because the first of line 17 is about to hit you again…“AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS LICENSE!”
See the cover sheet for Amendment No. 9 again, think really hard, and only say something if you have any proof that the limit on DU hulls can be found in Amendment No. 9 or any other future amendment or renewal of NRC License SUB-1536. If not, please stop wasting our air. Thank you.
2 Likes
Look guys he gave money to gaijin, get him!
1 Like