As far as the troll goes, his profile picture lionizes a nation that no longer exists and a failed ideology. No reason to put stock in anything he says.
Do you know the basis of debate? This is not up to us to prove something that doesn’t exist. It’s up to you to prove the US exported Abrams with DU armor package. You’re writing walls of incorrect text with 0 sources to back it up.
Furthermore, as some have already said, your XMPP-2083 document has nothing to do with export(the word itself doesn’t appear once in it). It is about the impact of DU on the environment… Are you trolling? If not, make an effort.
(The doc in question:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-07-14/html/98-18674.htm
3 Likes
Australia definitely got top notch armor back then for their tanks. Currently ordered SEPv3 will again receive unique non-DU armor.
5 Likes
It’s been a team effort. I’ve had some help with tracking down some books as well. @Daniel8599 did some hard searching to find the books that are currently en route. If they can be used to justify 960mm KE turret protection, and 650 mm KE lower front plate protection, I think the SEP variants will have had a fair shake in this game.
1 Like
3 Likes
Interesting, I never realised it when reading this before, but do you think Hayward was actually referencing the Non-DU armour package name i.e. “with an advanced non-DU armour”? I mean It would make sense as it could have been that the Improved armour was more of a HAP-1/2 comparable armour package and the advanced armour was a HAP-3 comparable package which hadn’t been completed prior to the Greek and Turkish trials and thus wasn’t tested.
That said, the Improved Special Armor was already very impressive as it was only bested by the Leopard 2A5’s improved armour, and by this I mean its protection was considered better then even the Challenger 2Es.
2 Likes
Saudi Arabia (2014+), Australia (2006+), Kuwait (2007+), Poland (2022+), Morocco (2016+).
I don’t believe Poland received it in 2021, but either Q4 of last year or sometime this year with their Abrams deliveries.
Again, this does not list the FMS classification of the countries, nor does it take place after the 1978 NPT of 22 USC 2778a was discontinued for Uranium 235 distribution… Hence the sent document.
The trials of Greece and Turkey took place in 1994, and funnily enough involved one of the largest Ukrainian trade scandals with Turkey. Still not applicable to the amendment of export arms, as it is an outdated reference.
Yes, they’re called EAP armor iterations. FMS is not an armor type, again, it is a catalogue of trade partners and their trustworthiness, used to rate the degree to which America will lease or sell arms to a country.
1999 isn’t oudated, though it is listing pre-1998 sales of the Abrams… Which again, isn’t applicable to this conversation.
Look at that! FMS details the countries eligible for any export arms… Wait for it… Based off of their trustworthiness!
Almost as if that’s exactly what I’ve been saying… And you’re here trying to pass it as if it’s an armor standard, when it’s simply the prerequisite to which nations receive which degree of american arms and technology.
It has to do with the allowance of export of depleted uranium. Its express purpose is to challenge the NPT acts that restricted DU export on the basis of health concerns and underlying issues with possible losses of a prohibited Uranium isotope in combat.
That’s the entire purpose of 98-18674. It amends the prior trade limitations of DU armor, finding its use safe to crews and any oppositional forces, therefore allowing it to be exported.
Alright
1 Like
The basis of the current debate is whether M1A1SA or similar export variants include HAP pattern armor.
I don’t need to prove what isn’t substantiated. The best retort to it was an article from an Aussie tabloid paper with no sources or direct quotation at all.
I’ve provided a myriad of sources.
As I have told them, XMPP-2083 pertains specifically to the NPT acts that prohibited DU armor export in the first place. It is considered an amendment to that decree, which had prohibited the export of Uranium 235 armor components, and served to prove the health standards of the armor and its eligibility for export.
The entire basis of countries not receiving HAP armor was due to the NPT… The document I provided was a direct counter to the NPT and its claims that DU was not safe for export, and its passing is very relevant as it disbarred the sole limitation of DU export and opened other foreign countries to buying Abrams variants containing HAP armor.
The armor offered to Greece and Turkey was described as 3rd generation ( Improved FMS ), but I don’t know if it corresponded to HAP-3, rather HAP-2. Maybe there is connection to what Hayward said or it’s a coincidence.
What’s the name of the book?
Soon™
I would assume that since it took place from 1994-1995, it would have been EAP-2.
Export restrictions for DU were still in place, and to pitch the tank for foreign service its lower weight also gave it an edge over the Leopard 2s and T-84.
Coffee streak confirmed???
1 Like
Statistics are western propaganda apparently
6 Likes
Statistics is german suffering
2 Likes
Yeah… must have been due to inevitable tank losses and not GDLS telling Iraq that if they didn’t practically gifting Abrams tanks to Iran-backed militias, that GDLS would pull operational support.
(Russia has no such concerns as they don’t care who their tanks go to as long as someone buys them…)
¯_(ツ)_/¯
What is that from?