You are the one who made the erroneous link, “muh DU because it the hull had to fit a NBC system that wasn’t in the original tank being upgraded”.
You are a clown
This is the latest bug report regarding not only M1A2 SEPv2’s armor, but also M1A2 SEP’s, work of @WaretaGarasu :
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jh4806nWWEYT
This report includes information used on earlier reports plus additional one and is the most recent; hopefully, we are slowly achieving progress in getting past Gaijin’s nonsensical filters and “reasoning” and we will manage to get something resembling more a actual M1A2 SEP and SEPv2 than… whatever we currently have!
Make sure to share and press the “I have the same issue!” button for further pressure.
4 Likes
It makes me wonder how they would even implement a SEPv3. We know for fact that is received NGAP which a huge armor upgrade over sepv2 but there is literally no values or estimates out there for it which according to gaijin the devs need them. Would they dare to keep it base line m1 values lol.
1 Like
What erroneous link? The entire context is upgrading older M1s to the A2 standard. The paragraph before talks about the special armor in all M1A2s and half of the M1A1s. Then it the paragraph you say only means an NBC upgrade specifically mentions replacing the armor in order to upgrade them to A2 standards.
Prove to me that they only meant it was an NBC upgrade when they talk about replacing the armor during a tank upgrade.
Here’s the text again.:
“Description. Four models of the Abrams tank have been produced since
1979. In chronological order and order of increasing capability, they are the
Ml, the IPM1, the M1A1, and the M1A2. The first two models have a
105mm cannon, and the last two a 120mm cannon with longer range. Other
improvements have been added over the years, including armor made with
depleted uranium (see Table 6). All M1A2 tanks and about half of the
MlAls have this special armor.
This option would include a program to convert the oldest Abrams
tanks—the Mls–to the M1A2 configuration. Such a modification would entail
replacing the entire turret, including the gun; installing new electro-optics;
modifying the hull so that it can accept the active nuclear, biological, and
chemical (NBC) protective system; and replacing the armor packages and the
entire electrical system.”
“This option would include a program to convert THE OLDEST ABRAMS TANKS-the M1s-to the M1A2 configuration.” Meaning not the A2s or A1s. Meaning that they would need the new turret, guns, and armor to even begin to meet the A2 standard. They mention replacing the entire turret, the gun, and the armor.
Then you say they only meant the NBC systems, despite explicitly stating the armor packages would be replaced. When going from M1 to M1A2.
Prove that they only meant NBC. Please. Because the actual text mentions much more than that.
Also, proof that there are DU hull Abrams. They wouldn’t have upgraded the licenses from to 5 to “as needed” like the the turrets otherwise.:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1619/ML16190A098.pdf
"Maximum amount that licensee may
possess at any one time under this
license
A. As needed
A. and B. For use (excluding repair or maintenance) and storage of tank turrets and hulls as depleted
uranium armor components of Abrams M1 Series tanks."
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1933/ML19331A319.pdf
“A. For possession, use, transportation,
and storage of turrets and hulls of
Abrams M1 Series Tanks, excluding
repair and maintenance.”
I’ll be waiting for you to prove that the licenses for DU hulls and turrets means there are no DU hulls.
Leopard 2A6s were always meta, German Teams just suck and then they complain about their lineups not getting any new tanks.
Yall get a Leopard 2 PSO then a Leopard 2A7, yet your tanks are still “Food for Russia”
It sounds like a skill issue to me, I mean you basically out perform the T-90M in almost every way, but ok I guess Germany still suffers.
1 Like
Just waiting for Trick or other employees to find other excuse to not improve Abrams armour.
1 Like
So the Army can possess, use and store DU hulls
But GDLS can’t manufacture DU for hulls, but can only install and repair DU for Abrams tank turrets
curious…
I wonder if that relates to those 5 tanks that the Army still have in their possesion
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2032/ML20323A346.pdf
Bruhh that source about the 5 tanks with DU was published before sepv2 was even thing lol Idk why people are still using it.
Prove that GDLS can’t manufacture them. Please.
Why go from 5 DU hulls and unlimited turrets in 2006, and then later allow unlimited hulls and turrets? We already accept that the turrets have DU, and the unlimited license for them was proof. Now we have unlimited licenses for the hulls as well. Proven in two different and more recent documents.
Was GDLS never able to manufacture the turrets you’ve accepted have had DU this entire time?
Prove that this excludes DU from the turrets and hulls, please.
Current contract expires in 2024 for GDLS
Check again, slo-mo. 2033.:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1933/ML19331A319.pdf
"4. Expiration Date: January 31 , 2033 "
I think you are meant to prove there is a license for GDLS to manufacture DU hulls,
truely idiotic as you always seem to show yourself to be. This is the Army license which allows possesion, storage and use of tanks with DU Hulls and Turrets.
What I posted above is the GDLS license which only allows the manufacture and repair of DU turrets
No. That was never the standard for accepting that there was DU in the turret. The same type of document that said DU for unlimited turrets was proof enough for DU in the turret. The newer documents now grant DU use for unlimited hulls, alongside the previous unlimited turrets.
Do tell how the number of DU hulls can increase if GDLS haven’t got a license to manufacture DU hulls?
Mitosis?
The document you linked isn’t even talking about manufacturing them, its talking about upgrading and disposal. XD
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2032/ML20323A346.pdf
“A. For installation of new depleted uranium
heavy armor packages to M1 Abrams
tank system turrets and ballistic
targets and for display, demonstration,
maintenance and nondestructive
operational testing. For removal and
packaging for authorized
transfer/disposal of intact (encased in
stainless steel) depleted uranium heavy
armor packages from M1 Abrams Tank
Systems turrets.”
Says nothing of manufacturing turrets. Other licenses, the same Army license type that was used to insist that the turrets have DU, but only 5 hulls had DU in 2006, indicates now that the Army can use DU in unlimited turrets and unlimited hulls. You erroneously bringing up a GDLS SERVICING license does nothing to say they can’t manufacture the turrets that have always been accepted as having DU, or the hulls that are no longer limited by a dated license.
Ohh gee of course now you are being pernickety.
Where’s the license that allows GDLS to install new depleted heavy armor packages to M1 Abrams Tank System hulls and ballistic targets and for display, demonstration, maintenance and non-destructive operational testing. For removal and packaging for authorized transfer/disposal of intact (encased in stainless steel) depleted Uranium heavy armor packages from M1 Abrams Tank Systems hulls
Also you are comparing two different forms
Form 313 is the from 2006 that specifies the Army owns 5 DU Hulls
Form 374 is the one you are trying to prove that the license changed from 5 DU hulls only to “as needed”.
Issue with this is… it never changed, the NRC have a web-copy of Form 374 from February 22nd 2006 (the same date as the well known Form 313 document) and the amount is still “as needed” for possession and use
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0624/ML062410022.pdf
Form 374 states “as needed” for use and storage of DU hulls and turrets
Form 313 specifies this as 5 DU tank hulls and unlimited DU turrets
And you know this how?
1 Like