Where are you getting information saying otherwise? The weight adds up to HAP bearing variants,
DOE regulations such as what? Ever since the environmental and export conditioning from aforementioned XMPP-2083, DU export hasn’t been restricted by 22 USC 2551, which unlike your linked code prohibiting… 105mm APFSDS?? From the 1990s and before the export restrictions lift following XMPP-2083.
The rules HAVE changed. Your only backing in this is a slideshow and misrepresentation of export security classification and… Laws pertaining to outdated munitions that are far outdated.
Sweden was restricted by 1993-1994 standards of American arms export, and received EAP-2 in M1A2s.
Australia and Sweden were governed by outdated export prohibitions set by America. Saudi Arabia has ordered Abrams 2 decades after restrictions to uranium export and health standards were amended.
Again, ammunition isn’t the topic, let alone 105mm ammunition.
Tungsten ammunition doesn’t cost upwards of $500 000 to use in export, nor close to a year of refits and efforts to downgrade. Said tungsten ammunition is the exact same design as all production M829 variants, though worse in muzzle energy and general weight.
Well, if the book arrives today, it will have estimates for the 3rd generation DU armor, both turret and hull. Considering the current M1A2 we have in game is based on the estimates of a nerfed non-DU export version from the Swedish trials, and that the M1A2 has 2nd generation DU inserts, it’s only logical that the 3rd generation DU armor of the SEP V1 and SEP V2 should offer improvements in protection for both the turret and the hulls.
The Army wouldn’t have wasted all the time, testing, and jumping through hoops and cutting the red tape, only to spend millions of dollars to make new armor packages, rip apart their tanks, and add more weight for the same protection or worse. Cuz one of the devs previously rejected an improvement of armor by stating the improved armor packages might not be an improvement…
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
