Why bother?
You cannot whine on the forums if you do not send in a complete bug report with all new evidence spelled out like it was meant for a toddler.
4 Likes
People who have tried since the dovbleg have had their reports closed on grounds that Gaijin already looked at these sources. I’ve asked a couple moderators what the best course of action is, if it is worth submitting again…and no response.
7 Likes
I’m not sure if English is your first language with all the Yapanese you’ve been speaking. Stop typing, you’ve been typing for like 15 minutes. Goofball
4 Likes
No. I wasn’t, and still am not. You’re unhinged bro. Take your meds.
Correct.
There is no part, it’s inferred. Since of course, you can’t be bothered to read the links I’ve provided, here’s where you know the purpose of the renewal form:
“orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now or hereafter in effect” that is the same as the clause “The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended”. AND to any conditions specified below.”
In plain English, for you to comprehend: "The material license here adheres to title codes outlined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and any successive amendments to The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as well as any conditions listed below in box 10 of this material license.
Amended License* not "Amendment Form*. This is a Material License Form 374, if it contains an amendment, it is marked in the upper right corner of the first page.
And yes, you are correct, it modified the materials needed and the conditions for their usage.
Correct, but the amended Materials License you want is either No.7 or No.8.
But yes, No.9 resulted in “several additions and modifications”. Specifically, it seems, in box 9, as you so courteously point out, which is highlighted in bold by the NRC, in case you were wondering, has to do with the use and storage of “tank turrets and hulls as Depleted Uranium armor components of Abrams M1 series tanks”. In fact, it says they are excluded from authorization to repair or maintain these turrets and hulls (presumably the ones in contact with radiological material).
No.7 and No.8 will give you a Box 9 result that is much more specific to the scope and scale of the Depleted Uranium usage. All No.9 tells us is that they are authorized to store and use turrets and hulls. It’s as vague as box 6 of the same form. While certainly there are hundreds, if not thousands of Abrams hulls with DU, Amended Form 374 No.9 is not a good one to use.
I have not made any claims yet. Quite jumpy. Simmer down.
No, it’s a Form 374 Materials License, it contains amendments to the previous license.
I haven’t had any. I still am not coping, not with anything other than the fact my tax payer dollars go to to this crap. There are no mental gymnastics on my side, however I suspect you may be projecting my dude.
I’m not going to, I don’t believe that document exists. Again, this is a Materials License Form 374, not an “amendment form”.
Wrong. Again, you want to iron out your timeline to give as compelling of an argument as possible. Also, if you treat the devs with the amount of vitriol you use here in this thread, your suggestions wont even be entertained. Chillax dude.
Spoiler
Not spam :)
More cope and mental gymnastics. Funny you can’t accept an amendment form that changed the license.
It’s an Amendment, that amends NRC Form 374. It’s an amendment form. Cope.
8 Likes
Guy can’t even accept that the forms are literally titled “Amendment” lol.
4 Likes
Potential source stating the M1A2s turret was approximately 15% better then the Chally 2s turret specifically in regards to KE protection, also states the CE protection was lacking as Flame2512s source states, that was until RARDE fixed it:
This was stated by Lt.Col. Dick Taylor, in his book on the Challenger 2.
7 Likes
This is wrong, I’ve addressed it. Again. There is no “Amendment Form”. There is an NRC Materials License Form 374, which contains amendments. Precision in language really matters dude. Do better.
It’s only the content of the amendment or correction. Otherwise it doesn’t matter… LOL!
Not every amendment is located in the same place. You have to actually READ the document.
This isn’t what I’ve said, I agree with parts of your argument. There is no present limit as far as we can tell, assuming Amended License No.13 is the most recent amendment, which you kindly provided a page of.
God created you bro so anything is possible.
The form is a Form. There is no specific amendment form. You renew the license with an amendment. I don’t know how you fail to understand that.
The form is titled “Materials License” by the way. Lmao
Hey guys, look at the form enclosed, it’s Amendment No. 09. This amendment form says that it amended NRC license SUB-1536, as authorized by the NRC.
I think someone said these forms didn’t change the license, they only renewed it, and some other nonsense about them not doing anything, even though the text states “ANY CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW.”
Man, I’m glad I’m not that guy.
5 Likes
Hey guys, look at the cover letter for the form enclosed, it’s an NRC Form 374, it says here its a renewal of an existing license, license number SUB-1536, and is marked amended in the upper right hand corner. Wow! The details of the license are listed in detail in the various boxes, and the specific amended details are titled in bold as a matter of public record! Amazing!
It says several additions and modifications have been made to your license and if you have any problems or notice any errors, you can contact the offices of the NRC directly!
Why does this matter so much to you? At worst this would make the tanks a little better in game, and at best it’s actually what they’re supposed to be. Fighting tooth and nail over verbiage this hard on something so silly is major stinky goose vibes. Go touch grass, talk to a lady, I dunno man, is this really worth your time?
1 Like
Because if you are going to trying to present yourself as an expert, you should try to get the information right, be willing to admit when you’re wrong, and treat others with respect, even if they are “mains” of a different nation and/or are trolling you.
Be the bigger person. That’s why I’ve made my point, and expressed my support for the M1A2 and beyond having DU inserts in both the hull and turret, and will be bowing out of the rest of this discussion.
Form 374 is really not a great supporting document, at least not the Amendment No.9, and someone (anyone) ought to do some more research into No.7 and 8, which may have a slight bit more support than anything else thus far.
Part of the reason it took me so long is because I started my draft whilst in the middle of a break from watching the series finale of the Queen with my wife.
1 Like
I do not get what you are trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that the army did not remove the 5 hulls language through the amendment?
The government amended the language from 5 hulls to “as needed”. There is no set amount, could be 4 hulls, could be 40,000. We know it was likely about 150 or so M1A1 hulls and all M1A2 hulls, based on the variety of sources presented by multiple reports.
Pesto may be a Russian main but he isnt dumb or against us getting whats historical its more or less hes making sure we present our information properly and know what we’re talking about , so the insults dont really help do they?
Spoiler
Hell hes one of the few Rus mains that are very tolerable, except when it comes to the Flanker :p /s
2 Likes
But i dont get the issue you are having.
This at minimum changes one of gaijins main justifications for not adding the armor from a negative to a neutral, something they have not recognized.
I would argue it does more than that through the fact that they went through the trouble of amending it at all (why change it unless they needed to?).
3 Likes
His point is to understand that its not perfect the wording can be misconstreued
Does your wife know that you’re acting like a child on an internet forum and insulting people about virtual tanks? You talk about being the bigger man but I see you insulting other people just the same. Truly the pot calling the kettle black.
1 Like