[RN7]

Originally Posted by CDAT

First Off this quote that you say I said, I never said it, if you are going to quote someone at least quote the right someone this was said by .45cultist.

Sorry about that I was busy last night when typing. But you were still being
rude.

Originally Posted by CDAT

Also it would not even take in depth maintenance just someone with a Geiger counter as DU does have low levels of radiation, enough that military counters (never used civilian) can detect it.

Right so you served on an M1. So did you ever use a Geiger counter on an Abram's or did someone you know ever use one, or did a superior officer ever allow you to use one near an Abram's and would you have been allowed go out and tell the world what you Geiger counter told you? They are military vehicles operated by the Australian Army. The only people allowed near them are military technicians who would need permission from a superior officer to use a Geiger counter, and they would be under orders and military laws.

Originally Posted by CDAT

Second off you have never answered the question that I asked, that being if the US has never sold a DU armored M1 what makes you think they decided to do so with the Australians who do not want it?

I think I tried to answer your question and others have also asked the same question and they got a reply from me too. Officially there is no DU armour and the Australian government has gone out of its way to state that, and I have stated that numerous times. But then there is the issue of the weight of the armour on the Australian Abram's. Read back on my posts I have put up a lot of information and data to try and support my view.

Originally Posted by CDAT

Have I done much research, no/yes/maybe (depending on what you call research) as I lived this for ten years, but two tons (about 4000lbs) is not a lot of weight when you are talking tanks. I do not know what was added to the Australian tanks, but based on what I have seen posted here they have extra fuel, cool water storage, an APU(?), and use a heavier fuel. So just the change to a heavier fuel and adding say an extra 100 gallons takes up almost 1000lbs all by its self (about 700 for the extra 100 gallons, and about 250lbs for the difference in weight from JP to diesel), not knowing how much water is added, but water weighs about 8lbs per gallon not counting the system to hold it, and cool it, but lets say 40 gallons (ten per person, this is about twice what we carried so maybe to much and ours was carried in Jerry cans on the tank so was not added to the official weight of the tank) that is 320lbs just for the water. An APU is about 400lbs. So right here we have used a bit more than 3/4 of a ton, if they also use some extra armor to replace the DU but is half the weight (just a guess from my fourth point of contact) we are now looking at just a couple hundred pounds still not accounted for. This could easily be things like different track blocks, end connectors, amount of ammo carried (40 mail gun rounds for M1A1, 42 for M1A2) radios, and who know what other little things that add up quickly. Heck even the CVC (Combat Vehicle Crewman) helmet, my old one from my time in tanks, is about 3/4 of the weight of my brothers (who served after I got out of tanks as a tanker) now his was better but also weighed more. So summing up lots of examples/thought/whatnot have been given on why the weights may be different, but you are the only one that I see saying that it has to be DU armor as nothing else could possibly explain how that much (and when talking tanks it is not much) weight was added/retained.

The weight difference between non-DU armoured Abram's and the weight of the tank listed by the Australian government is 3.5 US tons. That is equivalent to two medium sized cars added on to the tank. This weight was listed in 2008 before most of the additions that StainlessSteelCynic mentioned. This is the basic weight of the tank.

Extra fuel, extra water, extra ammo etc that you and StainlessSteelCynic mention is not part of that listed weight, and the Australian Army is not unique in carrying extra fuel, water, ammo etc in side and outside the tank.

Originally Posted by CDAT

I am not a expert on DU armor, but I did spend ten years as a M1 armor crewman, so I do know a few things about them. I have tried putting some of the information out there, based on my having been a tanker, but you have just ignored it as it has not fit with what you want the end story to be.

Lets be clear. This is what you said........

" I have served in the Middle East for about 5 years out of my 20 in uniform, and spent a lot of that time working with the locals, yes they have learned somethings from us, but other things that we keep trying to teach them they (as of 2013 when I got out) had not picked up in the more then twenty years that we had been trying to teach it to them. For example there tanks shoot a lot, probably more then even we do. However getting them to practice maneuver warfare training is like pulling teeth, they just do not want to do it. From what I am told it has something to do with the differences in culture and how we look at situations or something like that (never really made clear to me)."

" Now as I said I have been out for some time now, but to the best of my knowledge (and I will admit that I have not been tracking it) my understanding is that the US has never sold any DU equipped tanks, now if they were I would think a strong allies like Australia would be one to do so, but if we have not before and due to internal politics it is not a good way to make the sale, I have a hard time buying that they are just trying to sneak it in, when the troops with issued gear can tell if they are or not, and you know that if so someone would spill the beans. But this is just my thoughts worth what you paid for them."

" What I am seeing is that no matter what anyone says you are convinced that they have DU armor, so what is the point of further discussion? As I see it the main reason that we can say that they do not have DU armor is two fold, one the Australian government did not want it, and two the US government has never sold it before. If you are trying to find places where the governments may (likely did) say something that they did not mean to say that way, or said something that really was not cleared you can follow that rabbit for a long way. It may come as a shock to you (not likely, but who knows) that the government does not always tell the truth, for example the M1/IPM1 has a listed top speed on road of 45/30mph off road, and the M1A1 and later is 42/25mph. I can tell you from personal experience that is not true, I have gone much faster in my tank back in the day, but that is what the government says it is. The F-15 has a listed top speed of Mach 2.5, but there are press releases out there where it was said to have gone Mach 3.5, was that an oops we released something we should not have, or a typo? Also the SR-71 is listed as top speed of Mach 3.32, however it has been said that it can our run the Soviet missiles shoot at it (they can go up to Mac 4.5). So from my experience weights and speeds are very subjective and so should be taken with a large dose of Skepticism."

Tell me exactly what part of this is information directly related to the weight of the Abram's tank or DU armour? Its seem to be your opinion and experiences in the army, and a few examples of things which are not related to what I am talking about. It also includes a few comments which accuse me of ignoring what you and everyone else is saying because I don't want to listen to you and them and that I am arguing just for the sake of it. I have actually tried to answer you and everyone's posts with relevant information, but I've got a lot of accusations for doing that.

Originally Posted by CDAT

I have read what you posted, but it looks like you believe 100% the weights are gospel and the only way they can be that is if it has DU armor. Anything else the government is lieing about. I was trying to point out that it looks like sometimes they error, sometime it is misinformation, and yes it is likely sometimes it is flat out lies, but if you only pick and choose the ones that back what you want it to say then you are not really being objective.

And this is a prime example of what I just said.

I'm not being objective and I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but I do have an issue with weight of the Australian Abram's tank. I believe in facts and I've put up a lot information to support my view that the Australian Abram's has DU armour. According to you I'm accusing the Australian government of lying, but then you say......

"I was trying to point out that it looks like sometimes they error, sometime it is misinformation, and yes it is likely sometimes it is flat out lies"

What exactly are you trying to say? Are they lying? Yes I think they are lying about the Abram's tank. Thank you.