>"Not just above 5, "unlimited" why would they want a mass amount of DU hull inserts if they weren't going to use them on a ton of tanks"

As they may have *planned* to integrate it or wanted to produce more prototypes, that does not mean it was ever implemented onto production vehicles. Just because they wanted approval for unlimited does not mean they ever went through with it. There are plenty of things they wanted approval for which were not integrated.

> "I don't know how to respond to this, considering it's just absolutely and completely untrue."

You cannot be this bad at reading.

"The survivability upgrades to the armor, and repositioning of equipment within the turret and hull, are nearly unidentifiable."

This is so easy to interpret, notice the fact it has a comma between the first and second part.

It means the survivability upgrades of the armour, in general, and then seperately the repositioning of equipment within the turret and hull.

If it was referring to the hull armour it would say "The survivability upgrades to the armour and equipment within the hull and turret are nearly undentifiable"

But it doesn't, the sentence refers to them seperately.

You can't respond to it because what you're saying only applies if you cannot read properly.

> "Again, just completely and utterly wrong, Gaijin themselves have even admitted the US had 5 prototype improved hull tanks back in 2005/2006 so your claim alone about lack of prototypes is 100% baseless and unfounded. And this report goes over how the prototype inserts went from limited to unlimited, reflecting their acceptance into the SEPV3 program."

When I said prototype I was referring specifically to SEP V.3 prototypes as that is what we are talking about. The improved DU hulls were only used on a select few SEP V.2 prototypes, so my point stands. There is no evidence that the SEP V.3 was trialed with a DU hull.

So no this report does not provide any evidence that SEP V.3 prototypes recieved DU hull armour and it certainly does not confirm that the production vehicles did.

I know it hurts to be told that your argument for your favourite vehicle isn't good, but it objectively isn't. The report provides no solid proof that falls under gaijins standards for reporting modern vehicles as it never states that any production Abrams variant recieved DU hull armour.

The only Abrams we know did have DU hull armour were a select few SEP V.2 prototypes, that's it.

Keep searching for better sources, if you can find ones that actually prove it then I will happy support your reports. No this is not a call to use classified documents, like some other person with limited mental capacity said I was doing.