Is it me or does this look like way more breach armor than what’s in game?
6 Likes
That’s a good catch…
However I’d stay away from this license entirely at this point. I’ve done some deeper digging, and TACOM, especially from 2004 onwards, is all about lifecycle management, and is mostly a laboratory for research as well as decommissioning radiological materials.
If you read the later amendments, there is a concerning detail about byproduct, source, and/or special nuclear material (think unlisted decay materials that you can’t predict beforehand).
The information about TACOM both online and on the NRC ADAMS library suggests (at least to me) that while circumstantial in proof regarding the existence of DU armor in hulls and turrets, it would probably be best to look further into the General Dynamics licenses instead. There might be better detail to be found there.
3 Likes
The problem with staying away is until they recognize the amendment gaijin can keep pointing to the 5 hull limit no matter what documents are provided.
Man I stop looking for a minute (few hours) what happened in here
1 Like
I think it may be a mistake and the author confused the M1A2 with the M1A1HA, which would match in terms of armor ( better KE and worse HEAT ), and the second thing is that the M1A2 commander’s station was not poor, it was probably the best in the world.
3 Likes
From picking over the General Dynamics license and amendments, as well as safety inspections, it’s clear that there is a plethora of procedures in place to deal with an “undisclosed amount of” depleted uranium, whether for installing, uninstalling, or replacing DU “armor packages”.
I found the co-application with TACOM and GDLS to be fairly boring except for the details disclosed about the use of “Heavy Armor”, the peculiar capitalization suggests they are referring to the M1A1HA. If people can start adding stuff about the HA, it’s mentioned clearly that DU inserts were added to the M1A1 before being deployed to Desert Storm. That’s in an official document and that is going to be difficult for them to deny.
Another interesting bit was the mention of the the removal and replacement of certain subassemblies. If someone can find the language of subassembly in reference to depleted uranium, this would help build the case.
Lastly, it is mentioned the only way to officially declassify (reveal which Abrams have/had DU in the hull [we all know about the DU serials at the end of the turret number]) is to follow the instructions of the “Abrams Declassification and Demilitarization Guide”. I’m not sure if that document exists in the public record, or if it can be shared, but I’d imagine that document would be a great resource if it’s some sort of FM like almost any other military topic.
3 Likes
Not to mention what I sent states use of DU as armor in the Abrams since 1988, and mentions the rework of DU armor in the M1A2 which im Assuming means the placement as that only makes sense to me
1 Like
as for the poor commander station, it fits the M1A1, but not the M1A2, which had CITV and early BMS and was better than the CR2.
1 Like
Then scroll down to page 21 on the document that Gaijin cited…:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf
The one that is amended by Amendment No. 09 on Aug 2006 to remove limits on the amount of hulls that can have DU. The FONSI statement and decision was dated 2001.
2 Likes
Different license number. I’d imagine that has to do with decommissioning tanks, or modifying them for export.
2 Likes
Well it specifically mentions DU “Front Armor” rather then Turret armor as usual so its something I guess
7 Likes
This was most likely from the very early stages of the M1A1 Block II testing (1988/89 testing) i.e. prior to HAP-2 / the Brits improving the CE protection that the M1A2 would get, meaning it only had the M1A1 HA armour and overall was still probably quite close to the M1A1 HA, that said I don’t know the specifics of what the M1A1 Block II had in regards to improvements during that time:
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/d/e/de153160717cced094df6ecb7fdbbc9f05afcb6d.png
If you knew how many tanks went in through Anniston from the earliest of January 11th, 2021 to May 31, 2021. Then yes, it would be.
1 Like
no offence taken, English is my second language yes, but i would like to think that i read and write better English than a majority of native speakers. An amendment can Either just accept an application as is or both accept it and change the scope of it at the same time. all of the applications and amendments we have access to are all referring to a main licence SUB-1536 that is continuously changed and renewed. it is always the newest amendment that is the valid one and all prior to that one are no longer in effect. what many seem to misunderstand is that the amendment we read is the actual licence (in the same way you have a physical driver licence that can be changed if you get new permissions for new vehicles, send in an application and get a new licence back).
correct.
No. 9 came into effect Aug 24 2006 (bottom of amendment no9 and top of cover letter states the date). What if the routine of bolding changes was not implemented before then? what if it isn’t a routine? what if that is only made when its small changes to make it easier to see what has been changed?
(https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0624/ML062410022.pdf)
We know that amendment no.9 made a lot of changes according to the cover letter.
“Please note that several additions and modifications have been made to your NRC licence. Please review the document carefully.”
(https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0625/ML062540068.pdf)
Applications states exactly this:
“The renewal application consolidates prior amendments to
the license and represents the current program.” (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf)
Meaning that ALL amendments prior to this letter being sent on Feb 22 2006 is included in the application.
Point 5.a.2 in application limits amount to 5 hulls.
this means that the limit still existed in 7 and 8 since they are consolidated into the application.
and we know that amendment no 9 is then missing that limit. so that change must have come in no 9 and not 7 or 8 since those are both already consolidated into the application which still contains the limit of 5 hulls.
if that change happened before Feb 22 2006 (when the application was sent) in either of those amendments (7 or 8), then the application would no longer contain the limit of 5 hulls.
that is not entirely correct, as previously stated, no.7 and no.8 happened before Feb 22 2006, application sent in includes those amendments, application still has limit of 5 hulls.
what you are correct about is the likely existence of more precise correspondence in between Feb 28 2006 (when application was received by the NRC) and Aug 24 2006 (when licence renewal and change was approved) that talk about changes. but we know that changes were made.
Amendment no 11 is the last one that changes the date (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1808/ML18088B370.pdf) and we know the date changes between no 10 and 11 and yet it is not marked in bold.
Amendment 13 (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1933/ML19331A319.pdf) no bold text yet changes must have been made and the expiration date is the same.
And this is the latest version (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2028/ML20283A426.pdf) notice the lack of bold text. changes has to have been made, otherwise an amendment would not have been made.
(note point 17 listing all the correspondence and changes asked for and made)
4 Likes
It wouldn’t matter regardless. The text of the Amendments contain text that say things like:
“ANY CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW.” Not “ANY CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW, BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE IN BOLD TEXT.”
Or “SUB-1536 is RENEWED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO READ AS FOLLOWS.” Language like this isn’t changed by the presence or absence of bold text. Some of these documents had no bold text, yet the text that was in the document and the relevant line item/field/part of the form would still supersede the relating or previous version of any of the items addressed in the amended form.
The Taiwan idea it is indeed very good. Do we have open official sources that state this?
@Count_Trackula @Necronomica guys they rejected that document. You guys need to thing some different strategy that is not based on this document.
Like with every Abrams exported to foreign country, US need to replace old armour with FMS one.