Com-Central.net

When DU armor was added was it just on the front-facing armor?

And everyone can know hear the crickets chirping in the background..........

Sorry Mark, can't help you.

Best bet if your a DA employee is probable to call the PM HBCT or PM Abrams and see if they can tell you. There is a possibility it is classifed but I'm sure they'll tell you if that's the case.

My own "doesn't know what he's talkng about" impression is that DU may just cover the frontal arc. I recall one of the trials vehicles having extra steel plates welded to the turret face to represent the added weight.

Update: The weld number on the turret ends in "U" indicating DU but the hull does not. So I assume the DU is front-facing turret armor. Just a guess.

"Chirp, Chirp, Chirp"

"Crickets chirping in the background"

Hi Mark! Hi Folks!

- MarkHolloway

When DU armor was added was it just on the front-facing armor?

The location of the panels is not classifed folks.

Drawing is from the July-August 2000 issue of Armor Magazine. Pages 32-33 and 48 by Mike Sheheane. Story is a reprint from the January 2000 issue of Army Chemical Review.

Note from the article: The DU used by the US is 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. DU is a heavy metal like lead and just like breathing or eating lead dust, it is not good for you.


This drawing is from the old Journal of Military Ordance November 2000, pages 24-25. Same author and story, just different drawing.

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Thanks for the info, Roy. I'm sure the evironmentalists are happy to know they are 40% less radioactive

Did anyone catch the error? The first photo is labeled M1A2 but it's an M1A1.

Hi Mark, Roy.
Yep, some things may not be classified but if you still wear the green (or actually the pixallated grey now) suit and your job is not Public Affairs it is best not to say anything. This even applies to recent retiree's. The rule of thumb is beter to keep quite and ensure you don't say the wrong thing than say something you believe isn't classified and be wrong . Words I've lived by for a long time.

Joe D

Hi Joe! Hi Folks!

- Joe_D

Yep, some things may not be classified but if you still wear the green (or actually the pixallated grey now) suit and your job is not Public Affairs it is best not to say anything. This even applies to recent retiree's. The rule of thumb is beter to keep quite and ensure you don't say the wrong thing than say something you believe isn't classified and be wrong . Words I've lived by for a long time.
Joe D

Roger that Joe!

That's why it took so long for me to say anything, I waited until I was able to find that article first. I was suprised when I found it that I had two different magazine copies of the same report.

Some time back I read an interview of Tom Clancy. He told a story about the Navy sending a security investigator over to find out how he knew so much about the U.S. Navy's submarines and anti-submarine systems. It seams that some Adrimal was upset after seeing the Hunt for Red October and wanted to know how a civilian knew some much. Clancy was able to show the investigator a filing cabenet full of news paper and magazine articles clippings that showed ever thing he wrote about in his book "Red October" had been declassifed.

When talking about things that have or might still be classified, make sure you have documentation that shows you are talking about items that have been de-classified and made available to the public.

Hey Mark! Good eye, I totally missed that M1A2 label on that M1A1.

Sgt, Scouts Out!

Hi Roy,
I'll go one further, Just because it was published in an article/web page doesn't mean you can talk about it. Some of them are nothing more than bait put out there to either confirm or deny the information they have. I have spent a great deal more time with M1's than M60's, but I tend to keep M1 stuff mostly too myself. One obvious reason is they are being used in combat as we speak. I also believe that just because the information is not sensitive/classified why should I make it easy for the bad guys to get it. Armor and it's strengths/weaknesses is one subject too many of the bad guys are very interested in.
With that said I will say this DG and it's members are very good about keeping the discussions away from sensitive subjects. I'm sure it's because most have the "Been there, done that" background.

I will now hop off my soap box.
Joe D