That’s what I said…
Otherwise I wouldn’t include the “non-DU” part in the sentence.
1 Like
maybe you’re not a native English speaker but when you phrase it “the non-DU package of the M1A1 HC” it makes it implies that the M1A1 HC has a non-DU package
a better way to phrase it would have been
“the Australian M1A1 AIM has a similar package to the M1A1 HC, but with the DU plates removed”
6 Likes
No, that statement in English implies that M1A1 HC does have DU internally, and that there’s a non-DU package available as an option, especially for export.
it doesn’t mate, you just chose poor phrasing
2 Likes
M1A1 HC forward has [at least] two armor packages depending on what client wants, one DU and one non-DU.
This is well known…
1 Like
Already have. There’s a reason I aced every class and was AP, then college.
sure thing buster, whatever you say
3 Likes
What happened to the FOIA post and that guy who made it?
1 Like
Standards are different today…
So Gaijin just “misunderstands” a source that doesn’t use DU and uses it to determine the strength of the DU package? Or that they think the US military would even field an armor upgrade on literally all of its new MBT’s when the increase in armor is only 1%?
1 Like
Straight up not true lol.
I assume you mean Convaire, to my knowledge he hasn’t posted his thread yet.
2 Likes
this sentence:
could easily be interpreted as “AIM uses the same non-DU package that is in the M1A1 HC”
what you ment is “AIM uses the non-DU version of the DU package the M1A1 HC uses”
you might be good at English, you do however struggle massively with interpretations and nuances.
additionally, try using “that’s what i ment” instead of “that’s what i said”. because more often than not, it wasn’t what you said but it was what you ment.
1 Like
Above photo: Referring to steep UFP and its equivalent protection value.
Is this considered a reliable source?
@AlvisWisla lets debate
5 Likes
The “HC heavy” and “HC heavy +”
They both had DU
The HC + had an additional DU plate in the back of the armor sandwich.
Notice with the HC+ it states only ”front of HA tank”
While the first model of HC specifies “front of turret”.
.
This is’nt even close to being true. You clearly have no educational value on this topic.check my response above. You could have just looked this up before you typed it?
@SpeclistMain keep fighting the good fight. You were correct.
@AUSChalkWarrior you were also correct.
1 Like
Prove that M1A1 HC+ series of tanks doesn’t have a DU package then.
Cause we know it has an export package as per the Swedish trials.
No export version of any Abrams has DU. It’s replaced with titanium(correction- more than likely tungsten than titanium, I meant tungsten) but it’s not considered an HC model because other changes were made to the export versions as well.
Also, I wanted to add- this is not a fact it’s only my opinion- As far as I’m aware DU ARMOR DESIGN is top secret so the USA believes it should remain that way, they claim DU is NOT SOLD TO OTHER COUNTRIES in abrams,. But it’s very possible they just tell us that depending on the customer. Imma do some research on this subject.
3 Likes
Then we’re literally in agreement and there’s nothing to discuss.