Tank Train is off to Market! Notice no markings denoting country or alliance.

Must be a beast of a locomotive engine to be able to pull all those vehicles!

But, yeah, you'll totally be able to fight off the government with your collection of handguns.

None of those vehicles are actually tanks, but whatever...

>> ^therealblankman:

None of those vehicles are actually tanks, but whatever...


What are they?

They look like Bradley M2s.

I count 99 Bradley M2-type vehicles and 12 M977 HEMTT-type fuel tanker vehicles in the video. My guess is that there are at least an additional 20% that had already passed before the person started recording the video.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^therealblankman:
None of those vehicles are actually tanks, but whatever...

What are they?


They're the exact same things as tanks with slightly lighter armor and slightly smaller guns.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^therealblankman:
None of those vehicles are actually tanks, but whatever...

What are they?

They're the exact same things as tanks with slightly lighter armor and slightly smaller guns.


Not exactly, Bradleys are APCs, designed to carry troops into battle and then fight alongside them. MBTs like the Abrams only carry the crew necessary to operate the vehicle.

I think you could call those tanks. Dictionary definition of 'tank' is "an enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks." Depends on the audience and context. To the world at large, those are tanks.

The "heavily armed and armoured" part is the problem. These are not heavily armed. They fit squarely within the definition of an APC:

armored personnel carrier 
noun
a tracked military vehicle with a steel or aluminum hull used to transport troops in combat and usually fitted with light armament. Abbreviation: APC>> ^AeroMechanical:

I think you could call those tanks. Dictionary definition of 'tank' is "an enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks." Depends on the audience and context. To the world at large, those are tanks.

I drive through Watsonville on my way to Santa Cruz from the 5. I never knew these things were even built in California.

They might not be. Train is, by far, the most economical way to transport heavy military vehicles - particularly tracked ones. These may be on their way from a base to a training area.

Tracked vehicles need an insane amount of maintenance - upwards of 12 man-hours for every hour they are driven. Driving these across the country would be inordinately expensive.>> ^Yogi:

I drive through Watsonville on my way to Santa Cruz from the 5. I never knew these things were even built in California.

Wikipedia reckons those Bradleys cost about $3M each... wave to your taxes.

Lets just agree that Tank/APC train could fire one hell of a broadside.

There must have been a non-LRU upgrade this year; a recall for faulty airbags perhaps?

>> ^Jinx:

Lets just agree that Tank/APC train could fire one hell of a broadside.


You're absolutely right of course, but let me put it to you another way.

There are, let's say, 99 Bradleys on that train. You pit all of them against say a half-dozen M1A2 Abrams Tanks and the tanks would destroy or disable every one of those Bradleys without having one single hole put through them. Well, this is if it were possible to carry enough ammunition.

The 25mm Bushmaster gun that the Bradleys carry is a good weapon against troops and lightly armoured vehicles, but those rounds would simply bounce harmlessly off the tank. Likewise the armour of a Bradley is fine against most small arms fire but would likely be destroyed by a single RPG, or perhaps even an armour-piercing .50 BMG round.

TankTrain... what do the scouts say about it's power level?

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^Jinx:
Lets just agree that Tank/APC train could fire one hell of a broadside.

You're absolutely right of course, but let me put it to you another way.
There are, let's say, 99 Bradleys on that train. You pit all of them against say a half-dozen M1A2 Abrams Tanks and the tanks would destroy or disable every one of those Bradleys without having one single hole put through them. Well, this is if it were possible to carry enough ammunition.
The 25mm Bushmaster gun that the Bradleys carry is a good weapon against troops and lightly armoured vehicles, but those rounds would simply bounce harmlessly off the tank. Likewise the armour of a Bradley is fine against most small arms fire but would likely be destroyed by a single RPG, or perhaps even an armour-piercing .50 BMG round.

Don't Bradley's sometimes carry TOW missiles?

I would like to see what would happen if 99 25mm cannons all fired on a single Abrams. I would have though the danger to the Tank would not be a round penetrating the armour, rather that the tank would be eroded rather quickly by that much metal flying at it.

Also, gratz on your Videosift level1 Pedant badge

tanks (err apc's and armored tanker trucks) are the one thing we haven't outsourced to china.

>> ^marinara:

tanks (err apc's and armored tanker trucks) are the one thing we haven't outsourced to china.


Yet.

based on camo color, it looks like these are going to Europe or will stay in US..not to Iraq/Afghanistan/middle/far east.

See this movie...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars

hilarious clever and scary

"are we going to war?"



Bro, you ARE at war...have been for quite some time now.


Problem with America; exhibit A.

Your tax dollars at work, preparing for the bloody revolution.