Got through the paper a couple of times, I know I'm late...
Does this sound like shameless blatant lobbying to anyone else?
The way the author steers a whole score of doubtful facts and assumptions on his side, he must be from the same school of information management as old Sparky.
As far as I'm concerned I read the sentence
"not one 105mm depleted uranium round fired from the M1 (...) was able to penetrate the armor of an export model of the T72" with grains of salt reading "at angles over 60°", "at distances over 3000m", under the best ERA sets available" and so on...